Oral Answers to Questions

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Andrew MacKay: What mechanisms are in place to monitor the accuracy of published figures of greenhouse gas emissions for measuring progress against climate change targets; and if she will make a statement.

Margaret Beckett: The figures used to monitor progress towards the UK's climate change targets are published annually in the UK's greenhouse gas inventory. The inventory is subject to annual independent scientific peer review by a team of specialists organised by the secretariat of the UN framework convention on climate change. The inventory also contains internal quality assurance and quality control procedures, in line with international guidance prepared by the intergovernmental panel on climate change.

Andrew MacKay: Has the well publicised row between the Secretary of State's Department and the Department of Trade and Industry, which concerned the measurement of baseline greenhouse gas emissions, been satisfactorily resolved yet?

Margaret Beckett: There is no row. I do not row with my colleagues. If I understood him correctly, the right hon. Gentleman was asking about the baseline emissions, which are a matter for technical assessment and scientific advice.

Mark Lazarowicz: Does my right hon. Friend recall that my private Member's Bill includes a specific requirement in respect of Government reporting on greenhouse gas emissions that would deal with some of the points raised by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay)? Does she agree that one of the best things that he or anyone else concerned with this matter could do would be to be here at 9.30 tomorrow morning to support my Bill? I am glad to say that it enjoys support from the Government and across the House.

Margaret Beckett: I congratulate my hon. Friend, on his Bill and on his sales pitch.

Christopher Huhne: The data show very clearly that carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 2.9 per cent. since the Government came to power. Moreover, the Secretary of State will know that environmental taxes peaked at 3.6 per cent. of gross domestic product in 1999, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics, but that the latest figures show that they have slipped to 3 per cent. Does she think that there may be some connection between falling environmental taxes, which are now lower as a share of GDP even than when the Government came into office, and the record of failure on emissions?

Margaret Beckett: First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. I am sure that he will find the subject fascinating and enjoyable, as we all do. I do not agree with the basic premise of his question—that CO 2 levels have risen because of changes in the impact of taxation. In fact, the rise has much more to do with the impact of fuel prices on the choices of fuel made by power generators. We very much regret that impact and, although the most recent figures suggest that it might not have been as severe between 2003 and 2004 as we had anticipated, we completely accept that we have to get the rise under control. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman of one further fact that undermines the point that he made: all five EU countries whose emissions are lower than they were in 1990 recorded an increase in CO 2 emissions in the period to which he referred.

David Chaytor: In respect of emission reductions, is there any reason to doubt the validity of the 2003 Energy White Paper? It argued that energy efficiency was the safest and cleanest way to manage carbon reductions.

Margaret Beckett: No, I do not think that there is any reason to doubt that judgment. Energy efficiency can be a very powerful tool. For historical reasons of under-investment over many decades in this country, it is available to us to a greater degree than is the case with the many other European countries that up to now have been able to deliver higher levels of energy efficiency. However, my hon. Friend will know that the investment put in by this Government, not least through the warm front programme, means that we are beginning to make inroads in that respect.

Peter Ainsworth: Some Opposition Members wish that the Secretary of State would have rather more rows with the DTI. Her Department says that, on current trends, we will cut carbon emissions by 13 per cent. by 2010, but the DTI says that the cut will amount to only 10 per cent. Are DEFRA and the DTI working on different sets of data and predictive models, and which figure is right?

Margaret Beckett: The latest figures predict a cut of about 10 per cent., but the two Departments are not working on different models. Figures and assessments are being revised all the time, as information comes in. I understand why the hon. Gentleman wishes that I would have more rows with my colleagues, but I find that that does not help me to get my own way, which is what I like to do.

Peter Ainsworth: We are very supportive of the right hon. Lady getting her own way, and hope that she is successful. We know that relations with the DTI are difficult, but how is she getting on with monitoring the accuracy of the data used by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor? Is she aware of research that shows that the ODPM's efforts to predict greenhouse gas emissions from new housing are completely flawed because they are based on data that are 25 years out of date? What discussions did she have with the Treasury about the accuracy of published figures on greenhouse gas emissions before the Chancellor aborted the operating and financial review? That decision has wasted millions of pounds, angered responsible business leaders and underlined yet again that, although she may be serious about climate change, the Government as a whole cannot be trusted on the issue.

Margaret Beckett: With respect, that question muddles together several issues. It is true that the operating and financial review is not going ahead, but there remain requirements on companies to report on environmental standards under other legislation, which is partly why it was decided that there was no need to have two different sets of reasons for reporting. As for the validity of data from other Departments, I understand that the hon. Gentleman's party is now saying that it wants us all to be on the same page and move in the same direction on such issues. That is good, and I welcome that. However, the issue is not the data—whether they are as good as they should be or could be improved—but what we actually do about them. That is something on which I would like to see greater agreement.

Warm Front Scheme

Diana Johnson: If she will make a statement on the development of the warm front scheme.

Jim Knight: The warm front scheme has assisted more than 1 million households since June 2000 and now provides central heating to all eligible households. It was announced in the 2005 pre-Budget report that an additional £250 million would be made available to the scheme.

Diana Johnson: In view of the steep increases in domestic energy bills, does my hon. Friend agree that a further improvement to the scheme, which would help those most likely to be in fuel poverty, would be to replace the warm front scheme's current maximum grant arrangements with a system based on an average grant? Such a system is already in place in Scotland and it ensures that low income households are not required to make any contribution to the cost of the work in their homes.

Jim Knight: I am grateful for the interest that my hon. Friend shows in the scheme and I note that the warm front scheme has assisted more than 2,785 of her constituents in its present form. The extra money that was announced by the Chancellor in the pre-Budget report will obviously go some way towards alleviating some of the effect of increases in fuel prices, and we continue to review the scheme to ensure that it is working well to achieve our aim of ending fuel poverty.

Jeremy Wright: Does the Minister accept that there are two problems with the warm front scheme, which prevent it from helping more people in more ways? The first is that the warm front grant is often used to pay for insulation, which should be provided free of charge by energy suppliers under the energy efficiency commitment scheme. The second is that warm front contractors often charge substantially more than other local contractors would—in some cases, more than £1,000 more. Will he look into those two problems and resolve them?

Jim Knight: I can certainly look into those problems, but I would like to pay tribute to the Eaga Partnership, a successful social enterprise that carries out that work for us. I certainly welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest in the scheme, especially as his party, when in government, denied that fuel poverty even existed.

Barry Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend agree that an extension of the warm front campaign that could link energy from waste with district heating could transform our energy supplies? Is it not time that the Liberal Democrats, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth realised that the scientific arguments for energy from waste are compelling and stopped their knee-jerk reactions to those important questions? Let us have an energy from waste programme that really works.

Jim Knight: My hon. Friend will know that we are looking at energy from waste as part of our waste review. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment will bear those comments in mind.

Graham Stuart: Paul McIntyre, the head of the energy strategy unit, has said:
	"On current policies we won't eliminate fuel poverty by 2010."
	Does the Minister agree?

Jim Knight: We accept that the 2010 target is an ambitious one, but we obviously welcome the additional £250 million that was pledged by the Chancellor for the 2005–08 period. Those resources will be necessary for us to meet our target, to which we remain committed, of ending fuel poverty for vulnerable households by 2010, and eliminating it for all households by 2016.

Climate Change

Tony Lloyd: If she will make a statement on the findings of the intergovernmental panel on climate change.

Margaret Beckett: My Department has accepted the assessments of the intergovernmental panel on climate change as providing the most authoritative picture of climate change. The third assessment report of the IPCC was published in 2001 and has made a most valuable contribution to our understanding of the importance of the issue. The IPCC is undertaking its fourth assessment. The draft reports are currently undergoing peer review and will not be published until 2007.

Tony Lloyd: May I endorse my right hon. Friend's remark that the IPCC produces the most authoritative reports? However, its reports have not been uniformly accepted throughout the world, even though the science that they contain is as good as it can get. We surmise from the leaks of the draft report that my right hon. Friend will have in April that it will be even more dire in its predictions than previous reports, because it will say that there is no upper limit to temperature increases owing to carbon dioxide increases. Does the Minister believe that it will galvanise the whole of the international community, including the United States and countries that opted out of Kyoto, to do something serious about climate change?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is right to say that the number of those who question the science has diminished dramatically. That can only be a good thing. The new draft report is still undergoing peer review, so this is a delicate time to comment, but over the past year, not least as a result of the efforts of this Government through our G8 and European Union presidencies, even those who may retain some lingering traces of scepticism have accepted that the risks are such that it is wise for them to address those risks. That is why we are seeing more emphasis on adaptation, and not just on reducing emissions, although the two have to go together. As my hon. Friend will know, following the Gleneagles summit and the establishment of the Gleneagles dialogue, there is now a much greater degree of international dialogue, exchange, communication and so on, drawing in all the major economies of the world. We hope that that will provide us with a way forward.

Michael Jack: Does the Secretary of State agree that an important contribution to addressing the findings of the IPCC would be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from our power stations by the use of biomass? In that context, could the Secretary of State explain to the House why the value of the renewables obligation certificates now makes it less attractive to use biomass as a co-firing fuel medium in power stations at the very time when research shows that as a biofuel it gives the best return per hectare in carbon dioxide reductions?

Margaret Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is growing awareness of the value and potential of biomass and of biofuels. The value of the renewables obligation certificates and the issues that go with that are part of what the Government are looking at in the energy review. I am sure that, in his capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, he will know what other Members may not have fully realised, which is that the European Commission has recently published further observations on the role and importance of biomass and biofuels. There is growing recognition of their potential and a growing will to develop the industries in the European Union.

Bill Olner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK space industry plays a tremendous role in providing earth-observing platforms? At what level does her Department talk to the UK space industry on global warming and other matters regarding the planet?

Margaret Beckett: I am not sure what direct contacts we have with the industry, but our scientists draw on a wide range of disciplines and information. They are very much in touch with other scientists and have done a huge amount of observational work with them. Not unusually in this field, we have some of the best scientific expertise anywhere in the world. My hon. Friend may know that our climate change scientists are making the fruits of their work more freely available—for example, in the developing world, to aid in adaptation.

William McCrea: Although I acknowledge the serious nature of the problems of climate change that face us all, the Secretary of State will remember that the five Opposition parties wrote to her offering to work with her Department and the Government to find a united way to face that challenge. Has she accepted that offer?

Margaret Beckett: Yes, I did receive such a letter and I welcomed it, as I have indicated before, because it suggested that all the parties represented in the House accept the science and the targets that the Government have set, which is an important step forward. There are two other things, however. I shall not start ringing bells until I can see that we are in greater agreement about what we should actually do, because there has been a pattern whereby all the concrete actions that the Government have proposed have been one by one opposed by other parties in the House. We have not yet had an opportunity to test whether that has changed. It is a slightly different matter for a Government to engage in dialogue about future policy development than it is for other parties, although I very much hope that their policy decisions are fruitful, and greatly welcome the moves that have been made so far.

Avian Influenza

Patrick Mercer: What recent assessment she has made of the efficacy of vaccinating poultry against avian influenza.

Ben Bradshaw: The scientific advice is that the vaccines currently available would not provide the most efficacious way of dealing with a bird flu outbreak. Early identification, containment and eradication are considered the best way of dealing with such an outbreak.

Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful to the Minister for his courteous reply, but in Newark and Retford many poultry farmers and breeders have received conflicting advice, from all sorts of different sources, about whether or not they should vaccinate, yet few of them have received any official guidance from DEFRA. As a result there is complete and utter confusion. Can the Government put an end to it, please?

Ben Bradshaw: I am sorry if some of the hon. Gentleman's poultry keepers and breeders feel confused. Without more detail, I do not know who is giving them conflicting advice, but the advice from the Government—from the chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, downwards—has been absolutely clear, and that is, as I said in my initial reply, that the vaccines currently available are not considered the most efficacious way of dealing with a disease outbreak.

David Drew: Will my hon. Friend clarify the situation in the EU, as there seems to have been a breakdown in the pan-EU approach to avian influenza? Are countries that are vaccinating at present intending to cull later, or do they believe that the vaccinated poultry will be protected?

Ben Bradshaw: The European Commission has granted limited consent to the Netherlands and France to vaccinate on a pilot basis, in extremely limited circumstances. In the case of France, for example, vaccination is happening in only two of the three regions that applied for it, owing to resistance from the industry and the public. In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I expect that both the Netherlands and France hope that a vaccination programme might avoid the need to cull in the event of an outbreak, but our advice is that that scenario is extremely unlikely.

Daniel Rogerson: Local authorities will inevitably have a key role in tackling any outbreak of avian influenza, so what advice are they being given on how they should advise and protect the public, and what resources will be supplied to enable them to carry out that work?

Ben Bradshaw: Local authority emergency planning departments are intricately involved in all the discussions and preparations across Government, involving not just our Department but the Department of Health, and local authorities will be involved in the forthcoming contingency exercise. They should be well aware of their roles; the information is available and is given to them, but if the hon. Gentleman has evidence that they are not quite sure what they should do in the event of an outbreak, he should let me know, because there is no excuse for that.

David Taylor: Further to the Minister's observations about the limited vaccination of poultry in France and the Netherlands, will he tell the House what conditions and limits we shall impose on the trade in vaccinated birds and their products from those two countries?

Ben Bradshaw: The advice from the Food Standards Agency is that there is no problem with the consumption of birds that have been vaccinated. Of course there are restrictions on importing birds from areas in the immediate vicinity of the outbreak in south-east France. Trade controls on avian flu are on a regional basis, from which we could benefit, as we did last year when there was a case of Newcastle disease in this country. Exports were restricted from the area concerned, but it would not be sensible, or in accordance with sound veterinary advice, were we to ban exports on a national basis in the case of AI.

Nicholas Winterton: While I much appreciate the limitations of vaccination, particularly in the short term, what education have we received from countries where vaccination has been practised widely? I refer particularly to countries in Asia where vaccination is given to large numbers of birds. Have we anything to learn? Will the Minister put some information in the public domain so that the public may be reassured?

Ben Bradshaw: The simple answer is that the lessons are mixed. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that some countries—notably China, where there is a serious problem of endemic AI, both in wild birds and in poultry—have gone down the route of vaccination. Scientific opinion is mixed on whether that is a sensible thing to do. Three other countries in Asia which have not received so much publicity—Malaysia, Japan and South Korea—have all had outbreaks of AI in the past few years. They are all in a region where AI is endemic in wild birds. They have dealt with the problem through containment and eradication. They have not vaccinated. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that the evidence is mixed.

Russell Brown: When the first case was confirmed across the channel in France there was great anxiety in the industry in the UK, and even more so because the doom-and-gloom merchants said that cases would arrive on these shores within two or three days. How much contact has my hon. Friend had with his counterparts in the Scottish Executive on this matter?

Ben Bradshaw: We have worked extremely closely with all of the devolved Administrations. My hon. Friend is right to say that although we should not in any circumstances be complacent about AI, the outbreak in Lyon was some weeks ago and there has been no further geographical spread since then. It is still the only outbreak in poultry in the EU. However, there is no room for complacency. We must remain extremely vigilant. We do, as my hon. Friend requests, work closely with our colleagues in the devolved Administrations.

James Paice: I am afraid that there is much confusion in the country. Only last week the Prime Minister said that vaccination is not effective in stopping the spread of the disease, but experience in Hong Kong—a properly validated scientific exercise—has shown that vaccinated birds do not transmit the disease. It appears that we have a Government policy of no vaccination, yet the Government expect an imminent delivery of Nobilis vaccine for use in zoos. At the same time there is increasing doubt about whether other outdoor birds could be housed. We do not want a repeat of what happened during the foot and mouth outbreak, when halfway through the disaster the Government began to consider vaccination. Will the Minister now guarantee that the Government's present policy will not change, or must the uncertainty continue?

Ben Bradshaw: No, that is a ludicrous suggestion; of course we must be flexible. The evidence must be studied and we must take account of changing circumstances. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the situation in the poultry industry in Hong Kong is completely different from that in this country, as it is across the channel in the Netherlands. As he has raised what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week, I remind him that Sir David King was grossly misrepresented on one broadcast last week about his view of vaccination. It may help the House if I read the brief statement that he issued in response to that. It was that his advice to Government remains
	"that the disadvantage of using currently available vaccine significantly outweighs any potential benefits."

Clean Neighbourhoods

Si�n Simon: What information she has collected on the use local councils are making of the powers granted to them in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005.

Ben Bradshaw: There is considerable variation in the performance of local authorities in using their powers to improve the local environment. We intend expanding the local environment quality survey to all local authorities in England, and we will publish the results.

Si�n Simon: I thank the Minister for that answer. Birmingham city council is proving very good at levying fines under the new Act, and proving very bad at chasing up their collection. Given the obvious limited deterrent effect of fines that do not have to be paid, and notwithstanding the notable incompetence and dithering of the Tory-led and Liberal-assisted leadership of Birmingham city council, can my hon. Friend suggest any ways in which councils such as Birmingham might put a bit of substance behind their sound and fury and collect fines rather more effectively than purely vigorously?

Ben Bradshaw: I hope that they will be partly persuaded by my hon. Friend's intervention. He is quite right to point out that there are huge variations in local authority performance. Some local authorities do not levy any fixed penalty notices at all, whereas others issue hundreds. It is important that local authorities such as his own in Birmingham use the extra powers that the Labour Government have given them to tackle environmental crimepowers, I might add, that were opposed by the Conservative party.

Andrew Robathan: Under the Act do local councils have the power to instruct parked vehicles to switch off their engines? If Westminster city council does not have that power, will the Minister instruct all ministerial drivers in the Government car service to switch off their engines, because they are among the worst offenders in Westminster, polluting the local environment while they wait for their bosses with their engines ticking over?

Jim Knight: Not in our Priuses.

Ben Bradshaw: Not in our Priuses, indeed. I agree with the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan). As someone who uses the bicycle as his usual form of transport I, too, am annoyed by motorists who leave their vehicles idling for no reason. Obviously, they may have a reason to do so if they are waiting in cold temperatures for a long time for a Minister who is delayed at a meeting, but I join the hon. Gentleman in urging people not to allow their engines to idle unnecessarily.

Andrew Gwynne: The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act has indeed introduced a number of substantial powers for local authorities to tackle environmental problems in their areas. One of the main complaints that I hear is about antisocial behaviour and criminal activity in passageways. What progress is being made to allow the introduction of gating orders under the Act, as that would greatly improve my constituents' quality of life?

Ben Bradshaw: The provisions on gating alleyways to which my hon. Friend refers come into force on 6 April. I hope that his local authority in Denton and Reddish will use them to tackle the problems that he has rightly highlighted.

Meat and Poultry Imports

Ann Winterton: What recent developments there have been in Government policy on illegal meat and poultry imports to the UK.

Ben Bradshaw: Since November, Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs has doubled the number of staff who check passengers, freight and post from H5N1-affected countries. We are also launching publicity campaigns on avian influenza on top of existing campaigns on illegal imports.

Ann Winterton: Avian flu receives a great deal of publicity, but will the Minister reflect on the increasing danger of illegally imported meat and meat products into this country? On average, up to 12 tonnes are imported a year, a percentage of which is infected with foot and mouth, so will he improve considerably defences against those illegal imports? Ten sniffer dogs for 110 points of entry and increased baggage X-ray facilities are simply not good enough. Will he give higher priority to this important issue, which may adversely affect both human and animal health?

Ben Bradshaw: The hon. Lady is right to say that we should not slacken our guard against other threats because of the high level of vigilance against avian flu. However, we are not slackening our guardwe have provided 25 million of new money over three years to tackle the problem of illegal imports, and we have vastly increased resources for Customs and Excise, which has improved its checking, as there have been more seizures and prosecutions. There is no such thing as 100 per cent. security, but I am satisfied that we are doing as much as we can with the very generous resources that the Chancellor has made available.

Roger Williams: Recent estimates suggest that 15 million of the 30 million pheasants reared in this country for shooting are imported from France either as eggs or as young poults. Given the outbreak of H5N1 in France, has the Department undertaken any risk assessment of that trade, which will start in earnest in the next couple of months?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes indeed, we have done so. The assessment is that there is no risk as long as the pheasants do not come from an area where there has been H5N1 infection. Our vets have written to their French counterparts asking for extra reassurance. If we had to curtail those imports, there would be serious repercussions for our shooting industry, which makes a huge contribution to the economy of rural areas.

Bill Wiggin: The European Food Safety Authority's recent report on foot and mouth disease found that between 1 and 5 per cent. of travellers bring into the EU about 5 kg of animal products from foot and mouth disease-infected areas. The promised meat disposal bins and extra staff do not seem to have materialised. There have been only eight prosecutions, of which one was custodial, since the disease was in Britain. As 97 per cent. of the foot and mouth disease risk is in passenger baggage, why have we only 10 meat detector sniffer dogs to cover the whole UK? Between 2,800 and 17,500 tonnes of illegal meat is imported annually into the EU. How hard is it to train more dogs to sniff out that much meat?

Ben Bradshaw: There have been nine prosecutions, in fact. We have 10 sniffer dogs10 more than we had under the Conservative Government. We will soon have 14, which will be 14 more than any other EU country.

Recycling

Graham Allen: What steps she is taking to ensure that the Government target for 25 per cent. of household waste to be recycled will be met this year.

Ben Bradshaw: We are confident of meeting our 25 per cent. target for household recycling and composting this year. I congratulate local authorities and the public on their tremendous achievements in trebling recycling and composting since Labour came to power in 1997.

Graham Allen: I congratulate the Minister and the ministerial team on the great progress that has been made. However, our league position in Europe is probably more akin, sadly, to that of Nottingham Forest, or perhaps even Exeter, than to Chelsea's. Will my hon. Friend consider introducing annual increments in household waste recycling so that we can continue that important task?

Ben Bradshaw: My hon. Friend is right to highlight both our progress and the fact that we are still a long way behind most other EU countries. I invite him and other Members to study the draft consultation document on the review of our waste strategy, which contains new targets for recycling that are considerably more ambitious than our 2000 targetsup to 50 per cent. by 2020. If we can hit that, it will put us in good company with some of the best performers in the rest of Europe.

Tony Baldry: The Minister will be aware that Cherwell is the best-performing district council in the south-east of England for recycling household waste and one of the 10 best in the country, at well over 50 per cent. That has not been particularly difficult, however. If we can get the rest to the level of the best, we can meet the target in a straightforward way. Any hon. Member who would like to see how it is done is welcome to come to Banbury, and I will take them on a tour round the various coloured wheelie bins that have been used so effectively by the district council.

Ben Bradshaw: I am sure hon. Members can hardly wait. The hon. Gentleman is right, though, and I congratulate his local authority on its performance. He is also right to highlight the huge variation in the performance of local authorities, with some up as high as 50 per cent. plus, as his is, and some down in single figures. That shows that it can be done, and we want the poor performers to learn from the good.

Alan Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend consider that the production of energy from waste is compatible with the recycling targets that he mentioned? Is the suggestion in the waste review that energy from municipal waste might rise from 9 per cent. at present to 27 per cent. by 2020 an aspiration or a target? Has he made an estimate of the energy production capacity that that increase might represent? Does he agree that it would represent the capacity of three or four nuclear power stations, and if he does, will he communicate that idea

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There were a good three questions there.

Ben Bradshaw: We do think that energy from waste has a role to play, and think, as do all the green non-governmental organisations, that it is preferable to landfill. The figure in our review document is not a target, but an assessment of where we think we are likely to be, which is considerably higher than we thought in our 2000 reviewwe thought we would be at 33 per cent. by 2020because we have done so much better on recycling and expect to do better still.

Biofuels

Bob Blizzard: What assessment she has made of the economic viability of using crops for biofuels.

Jim Knight: Bio-energy has an important role to play in supporting the Government's objectives for improving sustainability, reducing the impact of climate change, farm diversification and supporting rural jobs and areas. We have commissioned a report on the economics of energy crops, and it is expected to be published shortly.

Bob Blizzard: As my hon. Friend knows, farmers have been asking for further duty reductions to make biofuels competitive with petroleum. With the tripling of the oil price, is biofuel now competitive and can we expect the bioethanol industry to take off? If so, do we have the vehicles to use bioethanol? In Brazil, they have so-called flex vehicles, which run on ethanol and petrol in the same tank.

Jim Knight: As my hon. Friend knows, because he takes such an interest in the issue, the renewable transport fuels obligation to achieve the 5 per cent. target by 2010 is causing the market to react positively. It is worth noting that if farmers grow such crops, they can claim on their land under the single payment scheme and energy aid, which is worth 55 a hectare.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister will be aware of the vital role played by beet growers in the rural economy in Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. What does he think is the ideal level of duty on biofuels?

Jim Knight: European sugar regulations are being changed, which will allow sugar to qualify for the single payment scheme and energy funding, like other crops. I gather that British Sugar is planning a large development at Wissington to use sugar beet, which will no longer be exported. I look forward to the use of sugar in the production of energy and am sure that the level of duty is perfectly satisfactory, on which, if the Chancellor wants to make an announcement, he will do so.

Ashok Kumar: On Teesside, Tees Valley Biofuels recently announced that it is building a plant that will create 50 new jobs. Will my hon. Friend congratulate it on being so forward looking? What support and help can it expect from the Government, given the far-reaching nature of its achievement?

Jim Knight: I congratulate Tees Valley Biofuels on its achievement. I hope that it has been one of the beneficiaries of the 66 million in grants that we have given to enable the processing of biomass since 2003.

Water

Shailesh Vara: If she will make a statement on the current level of water supplies.

Jim Knight: The present general picture is of below-average river flows across England and Wales. Reservoir levels are normal for this time of year outside the south-east. The Environment Agency has produced a report, Drought prospects 2006, explaining the likely consequences of a continuing rainfall deficit and recommending action by water companies and the public.

Shailesh Vara: Although I welcome improvements in reducing the amount of water leaking from pipes, 3,649 million litres continues to leak every day. What measures are the Government taking to encourage water companies to deal with that problem?

Jim Knight: The effort that the hon. Gentleman has described is principally the responsibility of Ofwat. Significant progress has been made in reducing leakage since the peak in 1994. Most water companies are now at their economic level of leakage, which is the level at which further cutting leakage is more expensive than producing water from another source. Thames Water, which has been the subject of some concern, is now meeting the targets on leakage reduction in its three areas of operation.

Sharon Hodgson: Will my hon. Friend explain the thinking behind the policy on abstraction charges with particular regard to the fairness of water rate payers in the north-east subsidising water rate payers in the south-east?

Jim Knight: My hon. Friend will know that the Environment Agency is responsible for that and is looking into it. I am sure that it will note her comments.

Gregory Barker: Although 3 million homes are still under water restrictions from last summer, few people realise that nearly half the water extracted in England goes to serve not homes but large, centralised power stations. What assessment have the Government made of the impact that a far more ambitious policy of renewable decentralised energy would have on our water reserves? What input have DEFRA Ministers had into the current energy review as regards reducing the amount of water extracted by the big generators?

Jim Knight: I have noted with interest what the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends have been saying about the generation of power from smaller units. It is interesting, and we have some sympathy towards it. The Environment Agency continues carefully to monitor demand for water, and the water companies themselves have a responsibility to plan 25 years ahead to ensure that the supply is there to meet demand. That is why four new reservoirs and three extensions are being planned.

Roger Gale: Southern Water is constructing an extension to the sewage treatment plant at Weatherlees in Thanet in order to raise the standard of effluent in east Kent in line with the measures required by the European Union. When that is complete, millions of gallons of virtually potable water will still be pumped daily into the sea at a time when there is a severe water shortage in the south-east. I suspect that that is repeated around the country. What measures is the Department taking to ensure that that practice ceases and that usable water is used for good purpose?

Jim Knight: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the excellent work done under this Government on improving the quality of water pumped into the sea. Bathing water quality has improved significantly over the past nine years. I will ask my hon. Friend the Minister of State to write to the hon. Gentleman on his specific question about the re-use of water.

Single Farm Payments

Anne McIntosh: What representations she has received on the payment of single farm payments in North Yorkshire.

Jim Knight: The Rural Payments Agency responds to all correspondence relating to the single payment scheme. As the scheme is not administered on a regional basis, it does not hold records on representations specific to North Yorkshire.

Anne McIntosh: Is the Minister aware that not a penny piece has been paid to any North Yorkshire farmer although the Minister promised that the bulk96 per cent.would be paid before the end of March? Indeed, that figure has now been reduced to a mere 50 per cent. Is he further aware that Scottish and Welsh farmers have been paid in full, with the perverse and distorting effect that they are outbidding North Yorkshire farmers for the cattle sold in our own marts?

Jim Knight: I have to remind the hon. Lady that today is 9 March. We will pay the bulk of payments by the end of March. I also have to inform her that the Welsh and Scottish Administrations are paying farmers in part, whereas in England we are paying them in full.

John Grogan: Notwithstanding that answer, does my hon. Friend accept that there is real concern among farmers in North Yorkshire and the rural community about the performance of the Rural Payments Agency? Will he encourage it to be as transparent as possible in providing information on how many validations have been made and to treat sympathetically those farmers who face delays in payment because it has been unable to finalise its digital maps?

Jim Knight: We will certainly want to continue to look sympathetically at that. I have noted the comments made by my hon. Friend and other Members from Yorkshire. We gave farmers a year's notice and promised that we would begin payments in February. We have delivered on that promise despite all the noise we heard in this House and elsewhere suggesting that we would not. We are pretty pleased with that great effort, by which we have managed to deliver on our promise.

Avian Influenza

Nigel Dodds: What discussions she has had with devolved Administrations on protecting the UK against an outbreak of avian influenza.

Ben Bradshaw: Avian influenza is regularly discussed with colleagues in the devolved Administrations. The main legislative controls to protect against an AI outbreak apply throughout the UK.

Nigel Dodds: I thank the Minister. What measures has he discussed with officials of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland, given that Northern Ireland shares a land frontier with the Irish Republic, and have any consultations taken place with the Government of that jurisdiction?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, and officials in Northern Ireland work very closely with officials across the border in the Republic to co-ordinate any response to avian flu. Northern Ireland officials had input into our contingency plan, which was most recently updated in December, and they will play a full part in the contingency exercise that we plan to hold next month.

Madeleine Moon: Has the Minister considered holding discussions with the Association of Local Government Ecologists, whose members are in close daily contact with all the local bird recorders and local communities, to make sure that there is a network of local information and contacts, as that would ensure that local authorities were at the forefront of tackling avian flu if it came to local areas?

Ben Bradshaw: I am not aware that we have had any specific discussions with local government ecologists, but if we have not, I shall suggest that it sounds like a very good idea.

Batteries (Recycling)

John Pugh: Whether further steps are planned to encourage the recycling of batteries.

Ben Bradshaw: The draft EU batteries directive is likely to be finalised later this year. In anticipation of that, the waste and resources action programme will pilot collection schemes for household batteries in England.

John Pugh: I do not want to accuse the Government of having a recycling strategy and package with batteries not included, but with 600 million going into landfill and only one in 100 household batteries being recycled, is not there a phenomenal amount still to do?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes.

Climate Change

James Duddridge: If she will make a statement on the Government's progress in meeting its climate change targets.

Jim Cunningham: What progress has been made by the UK on its Kyoto commitments on greenhouse gas emissions.

Margaret Beckett: The Government expect to exceed by about 7 percentage points our Kyoto protocol commitment to reduce the UK's greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 200812. We have today published the UK's demonstrable progress report, which has recently been sent to the secretariat of the United Nation's framework convention on climate change, confirming our progress towards our target. A copy is available on my Department's website.

James Duddridge: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but given that Sir David King, the chief scientific adviser, has stated that the 2010, not 2012, target will be a very tough target and that longer-term targets are perhaps more critical, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of a 60 per cent. reduction by 2050? Is that now more of an aspirational than an achievable target?

Margaret Beckett: I am talking about the Kyoto targets, which are for greenhouse gases as a whole, whereas I think that the hon. Gentleman's reference to Sir David King may have been about our CO 2 targets for 2010 and 2050. They are very tough targets. That is why they were set: there is a great deal to do. In the not-too-distant future, we will publish the climate change review, to which we committed ourselves in 2000, to show how we can get closer to those targets; but of course, no one has yet drawn out the path to 2050. Work is continuing on that, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will keep the House informed of that work.

Jim Cunningham: Can my right hon. Friend say what the British Government are doing to assist other countries in achieving their climatic targetsfor example, with projects, technology and so forth?

Margaret Beckett: My hon. Friend is quite right to suggest that not just the Government but the private sector in the UK can do a great deal to help others. Developing countries do not have such targets, but they can certainly make a substantial contribution towards solving or exacerbating the problem, as the case may be, and now that we have the Kyoto protocol enforced, since the earlier part of this year, there is increasing scope for projects to be developed under the clean development mechanism, whereby sometimes Governments but sometimes private companies can invest in technologies in developing countries to help them towards a low-carbon economy. Indeed, I rather take the view that that may be a big spur towards the transfer of technology, which has been sought as a development goal for so long.

John Hemming: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Kyoto targets do not include emissions from international aviation, which is obviously good news for any Minister who wishes to jet off to international conferences on carbon emissions. However, how will the Secretary of State resolve the discrepancies between her Department and the Department of Trade and Industry over aviation? Unless we repeal the second law of thermodynamics, we cannot have the massive increase in aviation specified in the aviation White Paper and reduce carbon emissions? How will she resolve that discrepancy?

Margaret Beckett: Of course I am aware that aviation is not included. At the time, it was thought to be much too difficult and the belief was that, if people tried to include aviation, the project would never get off the groundsorry for that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that, during our EU presidency, we got agreement from the European Commission to consider including aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme. There is what one could call a slightly theoretical commitment from the global aviation organisations that emissions trading is the way to tackle the impact of aviation but no concrete steps have been taken towards that. If we can get the matter agreed in the EU, that would be a hugely powerful step towards global action. As for Ministers travelling to discuss climate change, the hon. Gentleman reminds me of a question that I was asked at a meeting for the Gleneagles dialogue in London. One journalist asked why no Minister had arrived by bike. I explained that it was a little difficult to get here by bike from Latin America.

Waste Incineration

Angela Watkinson: If she will make a statement on the Government's policy on the incineration of waste.

Ben Bradshaw: The Government believe that incineration with energy recovery is a better solution than landfill for residual waste that cannot be reused, recycled or composted.

Angela Watkinson: Most waste collection authorities are doing their best to educate people about the virtues of waste reduction. The Under-Secretary knows about the huge amounts of waste required to feed a hungry incinerator and all the associated lorry movements in transporting that waste from collection to disposal points. Does not he understand that incineration is incompatible with waste reduction?

Ben Bradshaw: No, it is not necessarily. We must be careful during our review of waste policy that we do not introduce incentives into the system that increase incineration at the cost of recycling. We do not intend to do that. However, there will always be residual waste after recycling, reused to the point of minimisation. For the first time, we reduced waste last year. However, all the other European countries that do much more recycling than we do turn more waste to energy. That is why we envisage having more incinerators but not as many as we believed would be necessary in 2000.

Common Agricultural Policy

Martin Linton: If she will require the Rural Payments Agency to publish payments made under the common agricultural policy single payment scheme on a constituency basis.

Jim Knight: The Rural Payments Agency published common agriculture policy payment information in 2005, disclosing recipients of payments by geographic location. The RPA will publish single payment scheme payments, probably by the end of September 2006, and is currently reviewing the basis of this publication.

Martin Linton: I hope that my hon. Friend will publish the figures by constituency because it is important for Members of Parliament to know how much is being disbursed in their areas. There is no reason why, having done that, he should not go on to include addresses and postcodes, too. After all, 1.6 billion is currently paid into the bank accounts of farmers and growers, apart from those in North Yorkshire apparently, and I see no reason why people who receive public money should not accept

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have had 30 seconds of explanation but no question. The hon. Gentleman should ask a question quickly.

Martin Linton: Every other public contractor has to accept public accountability, so why should farmers and growers be different?

Jim Knight: We are capable of disclosing information geographically but have yet to decide whether to do that on a constituency or a postcode basis. We must bear in mind our responsibilities to the individual recipients. It is important for my hon. Friend to know that some of our larger farmers, who are the larger recipients, are some of our more efficient farmers who embrace most readily the reforms that we are making to the common agricultural policy. We should not fall into the trap of simply lambasting some of the most efficient producers in this country.

Cattle Testing

Paddy Tipping: If she will make a statement on her plans for pre- and post-movement cattle testing.

Ben Bradshaw: Pre-movement testing of cattle in England will help to reduce the risk of TB spread. Our intention is to introduce pre-movement testing from 27 March, subject to the findings of the independent review that is currently under way.

Paddy Tipping: Bovine tuberculosis is an increasingly serious and costly problem. The focus so far has been on badger culling, but does the Minister accept that better farm biosecurity has an important role to play in reducing the incidence of the disease?

Ben Bradshaw: Yes, I would accept that. My hon. Friend is right to complain about the level of the focus in the consultation on badger culling. Many people do not realise, for example, that pre-movement and post-movement testing has already been introduced in Scotland, or that it will now be introduced in England and Wales. All vets and scientists advise that pre-movement testing is a complete no-brainer if we want to get a handle on the disease.

Incinerators

Lee Scott: How many new incinerators the Government expect to be built in England by 2020.

Ben Bradshaw: The number of new incinerators built will depend on the technologies and the scale of facilities chosen by local authorities. The Government estimate that waste to energy of all types will account for about 25 per cent. of our municipal waste by 2020, up from 9 per cent. today but considerably less than was envisaged under our 2000 waste strategy because we have done so well on recycling.

Lee Scott: Has the Minister had any discussions with the Mayor of London on this vital issue?

Ben Bradshaw: I have not had any such discussions directly, but I believe that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had discussions with the Mayor of London recently on a range of matters. Furthermore, as part of the review of the powers of the Mayor and the Greater London authority, my officials regularly discuss whether waste should be included in any extension of those powers.

Business of the House

Theresa May: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for the coming weeks?

Geoff Hoon: The business of the House will be as follows:
	Monday 13 MarchSecond Reading of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Identity Cards Bill.
	Tuesday 14 MarchRemaining stages of the Animal Welfare Bill.
	Wednesday 15 MarchSecond Reading of the Education and Inspections Bill.
	Thursday 16 MarchIf necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Terrorism Bill. Followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill.
	The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages which may be received.
	Friday 17 MarchPrivate Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 20 MarchEstimates [2nd Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the costs of peacekeeping in Iraq and Afghanistan followed by a debate on deficits in the national health service.
	Followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill.
	At 10pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Details will be given in the Official Report.
	Tuesday 21 MarchConsideration of Lords amendments.
	Wednesday 22 MarchMy right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.
	Thursday 23 MarchContinuation of the Budget debate.
	Friday 24 MarchThe House will not be sitting.
	[The following is the information: Uncorrected oral and written evidence taken by the Health Committee on 1 and 6 December 2005 (HC 736-i,-ii and-iii), on Public Expenditure Health and Social Services 2005.]
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 16 and 23 March will be:
	Thursday 16 MarchA debate on the report from the Quadripartite Committee on strategic export controls.
	Thursday 23 MarchA debate on the participation of young people in democracy.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the next two weeks.
	The Government inherited a legacy of falling homelessness, yet there are now more than 120,000 homeless people, up 18 per cent. since 1997, and the number of homeless households in temporary accommodation has gone up 145 per cent. since 1997. Can we have a debate on the Government's failure to tackle the problem of homelessness?
	Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Independent Police Complaints Commission report on the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes will be published?
	The right hon. Gentleman will have seen reports that three of the Government's nominations for peerages have been blocked by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. When asked yesterday whether Downing street had leaked this information, the Downing street press spokesman said:
	Give me one good reason why it is in our interests to leak this.
	Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House on the circumstances in which Downing street thinks that it is in its interests to leak confidential information?
	I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that Government Ministers should be accurate in statements to the press. Last week, in a broadcast on the investigation into whether the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport had breached the ministerial code, the right hon. Gentleman said:
	It's the Cabinet Secretary, not a politician, the most senior civil servant deciding that Tessa has not breached the ministerial code.
	The right hon. Gentleman was wrong. The Cabinet Secretary established the facts, but it was the Prime Ministerwho, as far as I know, is a politician and not just an emissary from Godwho said that the code had not been breached. Will the right hon. Gentleman now make a statement correcting his mistake?
	Today the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Sir Alistair Graham, criticised the Prime Minister for refusing to act on the committee's proposal for an independent body to investigate breaches of the ministerial code, saying that the Prime Minister's failure to act was leading to a loss of public confidence. We support the proposal for an independent body to review the code, and the Prime Minister's refusal to act cannot continue. Is it not time for the Prime Minister to make a statement to the House on his position, and for a full debate on the ministerial code, so that public confidence in Government can be restored?
	Public confidence will not be improved by today's report that the Government plan to restrict the right of Members of Parliament to put questions to Ministers. However inconvenient it is for Ministers, surely the right of Members to question them and hold the Government to account lies at the very heart of our democracy. Will the Leader of the House ensure that there is a debate on his plan to gag MPs?
	In a written statement issued in the House on 13 December last year, the Secretary of State for Transport said that letting the Greater Western franchise to First Group would deliver
	an improved service for passengers.[Official Report, 13 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 143WS.]
	Given that it means cuts in services to Berkshire, Wiltshire and elsewhere, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State to come to the House to correct that misleading statement?
	In the light of all those issuesDowning street leaks, misleading statements by Ministers, loss of public confidence in the ministerial code, and attempts to gag Members of Parliamenthas not the time come for a debate in the House on standards of ministerial conduct?

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. Lady's predecessor had an endearing habit of believing all that he read in the newspapers. I rather hoped that she might address some of the stories that her researchers had culled from the pages of newspapers with a little more scepticism. I shall deal with her specific points in due course, but I think that it would improve the standard and quality of debate in the House if she occasionally viewed some of those stories with a slightly more critical edge that she appears to have applied to them this morning.
	The Government have put a huge amount of effort into continuing the process of reducing homelessness in our society. It is a terrible problem, which we have addressed with a series of initiatives. I do not recall that the last Government's efforts produced any particular successes.
	The right hon. Lady asked about the publication of the IPPC report. I do not have the information to hand, but I am sure that it can be made available in due course. As for the nomination of peers, the Government have established an independent system to ensure scrutiny of such appointments. I would have much more sympathy for what the right hon. Lady says if from time to time she could point to any evidence whatever that the matter had ever been considered by the last Conservative Government. In fact, they were content to bluster through the issues without ever addressing them as the present Government have.
	The Prime Minister has made clear that the only person who decides who is and is not in the Government is the Prime Minister. He has said
	You can't subcontract that decision. That is why I didn't agree with the recommendation and still don't
	the recommendation for an independent body, that is. I think that that is a complete answer to the right hon. Lady's point.
	As for the right hon. Lady's believing what she reads in The Guardian, there are no plans to restrict the right of Members to table parliamentary questions. That is, quite properly, a matter for the Procedure Committee. The right hon. Lady will know that the Committee has looked at the issue in the past, and has made strong recommendations for improvement in the systemnot least in view of the considerable increase in the number of parliamentary questions. The Committee has, properly, been extremely concerned not only about the number of questions tabled, but about the manner in which they have been tabled. I recognise that that is the responsibility of the Procedure Committee and it is appropriate that it should be.
	As for rural rail transport, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport was in the Chamber yesterday and I am sure that he would have been delighted to deal with that matter had he had the opportunity. Clearly, the Government remain committed to supporting rural rail transport and will continue to do so.

David Heath: The Leader of the House will be aware that Standing Committee A today concludes its consideration of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Billcolloquially known as the parliamentary scrutiny (abolition) Bill. Will he ensure that we have at least two days on the Floor of the House for the Report stage of that enormously important Bill to provide an opportunity either for the Government to rewrite it entirely to avoid its being shredded in another place, or for Members to find out why the Government wish to take upon themselves powers that are in excess of those afforded to Henry VIII or the national Government in time of war?
	May we have a debate on the United States extradition treaty, which is grossly disproportionate and unbalanced? The American Congress has yet to ratify it. It has found time to ratify extradition treaties with Lithuania, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Peru, but apparently not with the United Kingdom.
	May we have a debate on the continuation or otherwise of the council tax rebate of 200 that was provided last year? Given that council tax bills have certainly not gone down across the country and I am unaware of pensioners' income going up, why was it necessary to provide that rebate last yeara general election yearand not this year?
	The Leader of the House's consideration of future business is bound by very few Standing Orders, but it is bound by Standing Order No. 55, which requires that estimates need to be considered by 18 March. Why, then, are we having estimates on 20 March, thus setting aside the one Standing Order that binds the programme of the House? What on earth do people in his office do other than look at Standing Orders?

Geoff Hoon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has come to the House in such a bad mood. He is normally a kind, avuncular and friendly figure. I was about to congratulate him on his reappointment, but perhaps, in the light of his mood, I need to commiserate with him. If he had accepted the advice of the House to stand in the election for leader of his party, he might have got a different job, but, nevertheless, we are pleased to see him back.
	There has been a programme motion on the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, and the House has already resolved those matters, but I am sure that that can be looked at afresh if there is a strong feeling that it is necessary.
	Obviously, the extradition treaty involves significant negotiation with the United States. That reflects the different constitutional arrangements that exist in the United States. It is well known that the United Kingdom's system of dealing with treaties in general is fairly straightforward. That is not always the case for those countries that have the benefit of a rather more complex written constitution. No doubt the Liberal Democrats will reflect on that when they recommend having complex written constitutions.
	Council tax rebate is clearly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and he will deal with that in due course. As for the business of the House, that is obviously a matter for the House, as I report it to the House regularly.

Ann Cryer: My right hon. Friend has already announced that there will be a debate the week after next on the peacekeeping force in Afghanistan. May we also have a debate on peacekeeping in Iraq? That country seems to be moving towards civil war, with Muslims killing Muslims. Could there be a role for a UN peacekeeping force in Iraq eventually, on the removal of the existing coalition force?

Geoff Hoon: The debate will be concerned with the costs, as is proper, of peacekeeping in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It will be an opportunity for hon. Members to discuss those issues and I am confident that the House will believe that the money for peacekeeping is being well spent and assisting the development of democracy in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Leader of the House make time available for a debate on distraction burglary, which is an especially pernicious and evil crime that targets elderly people and is difficult to detect? In agreeing to such a debate, will he support the campaign of the Northamptonshire Evening Telegraph to beat these con men?

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman consistently raises important issues that affect his constituents and, I imagine, other constituencies as well. The matter must be taken extraordinarily seriously given its terrible effects, especially on our elderly community. The appalling behaviour has an impact on not only the people who are directly affected by it because it causes fear among many other people, who might be anxious about answering their doors or going out after dark. I entirely support the efforts of the hon. Gentleman and his local paper to raise that important issue.

Michael Clapham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that next Wednesday the Law Lords will be asked to decide in the Sylvia Barker case, which is a mesothelioma case, on whether compensation should be denied if a person has spent any period as self-employed and whether it should be reduced if all those who exposed the employee cannot be claimed against? It is likely to cause great indignation if the case is decided against Sylvia Barker. Will my right hon. Friend thus call an immediate debate if the decision goes against her so that the House can decide how to address the indignation that will be caused?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend makes his point very clearly. I have learned from standing at this Box over many years that I should not comment on cases that are still before the courts. However, if he chooses to raise the matter with me after we know the result of the case in the House of Lords, I will be able to respond more fully to him.

Andrew MacKay: Is the Leader of the House aware that even by his patronising standards, his response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about Sir Alistair Graham's report, which was published today, was awful? When the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life makes serious observations to the Prime Minister, he deserves a proper response. He deserves a response from the Dispatch Box next weekwill it happen?

Geoff Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is here every week to answer questions on any subject that hon. and right hon. Members may raise. Of course, he was here yesterday, and if the matter had been a burning issue for Opposition Members, they would have raised it in the way in which the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) has done today. The views of the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on the issue are well known, so the matter is not new and has been before the House on many occasions. If I have misquoted the Prime Minister, clearly I apologise to the House, but I do not believe that I have. This Prime Minister and previous Prime Ministers have made it clear that it is ultimately for them to decide whom to appoint to ministerial office.

David Winnick: Given what might appear to be a case of someone who has been nominated for a peerage putting pressure on the House of Lords Appointments Commission, would it not be useful for us to have a statement so that we can debate the matter and praiseI would have no hesitation in doing sothe work that we have done to make political donations far more transparent than they were when the Tories were in office, when they absolutely refused to make any change to the law that would have allowed donations to political parties to be made known? At the same time, we could build on the progress that we have made so that the possible link between political donations and getting a peerage or knighthood would become weaker, not stronger. Some of us are rather worried about the current position.

Geoff Hoon: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend's substantive point. The Government have taken clear steps to improve the process of appointment, to make it transparent and to ensure that there is proper supervision of what happens. I do not entirely share his criticism of the discussion that is taking place in one particular case, although I have no detailed information about the casenor should I. It does not appear to me that an individual is trying to put pressure on the Appointments Commission, but that there is the situation with which we frequently have to deal when such information seeps into the public domain, which cannot be in the interest of the process or the individual in question.

Michael Jack: The departure from the national health service of Sir Nigel Crisp has raised fresh doubts about the future management of the NHS. It is causing problems to hospital trusts such as the Blackpool, Fylde and Wyre trust, which is faced with ward closures and service cuts. In light of the uncertain situation, will the Leader of the House look to have an early debate on the whole conduct and management of the NHS, so that we might probe with some clarity just how the Government will get out of the mess that they have got themselves into?

Geoff Hoon: The right hon. Gentleman is usually a fair-minded person when it comes to establishing the facts, and I am sure that in the interests of his reputation he would want to add that in Fylde there are 5,400 more nurses, 543 more doctors and 142 more consultants. That is a remarkable record, and one on which I know, if he had a little more opportunity, he would want to congratulate the Government. Having a debate about the astonishing improvement in the health service under this Government is not something that the Government fear at all. We have had a number of debates on the question.
	On health service deficits, I have set out the figures before; a tiny number of NHS organisations are responsible for an overwhelming proportion of those deficits. [Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Members are shaking their heads and groaning, but these are the facts. The truth is that a small number of organisations are involved. I thought that the Conservative party was concerned with financial propriety and with ensuring that organisations balance their books. That is precisely what the Government are trying to do in the health service.

Dennis Skinner: Now that the question of standards in public life is being discussed again by the media, would it not be an idea, if we are to have a debate, to turn our attention to the Register of Members' Interests as well? Now that this has become a great public issue, it is high time that we returned to the idea put forward many times by myself and others: Members of Parliament paid 60,000 a year, which is enough to live onno one can starve on itshould be stopped from making money on the side. This book has page after page of people with directorships, most of them Tory MPs. If we want a legacy, let it be One Member of Parliament, one job only. Moonlighting should stop for everybody, especially them.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has expressed his point of view very well with his characteristic style, and I enjoyed the way he put it. No doubt, we will have some comments from Opposition Members about their views on this issue.

Nick Harvey: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the draft statutory instrument on the parliamentary pension regulations, on which he has announced a very short timetable for consultation? Does he understand the concern of the trustees that Members of the House should have the same pension options in the new era that begins in April as other members of the public, and in particular our concerns that older Members will not have as much of an option on their right to commute their pension into a lump sum; that the death in service benefit on which, sadly, any Member's family could depend at any moment, will be restricted; and that divorced Members will not get the opportunity to rebuild their benefits that other members of the public will have? In view of that short consultation, could we have a debate so that Members can make their views known?

Geoff Hoon: I certainly appreciate that this is an important issue not only for Members of Parliament but for all pension funds facing the significant changes that the new financial legislation brings into force on 6 April. It is a matter of concern to people up and down the country. The Government have made changes that will encourage people to save for their pension right through their working life, and I recognise the importance of that for Members of Parliament and others. I am certainly willing to discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman in detail.

Julie Morgan: I know that my right hon. Friend is aware that there will be a debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon on violence against women to mark international women's day. Can we have a debate on the Floor of the House about equal payone of the other major issues facing women in this country todayparticularly in the civil service because that is something over which the Government have more control?

Geoff Hoon: I acknowledge the important material about equal pay that was recently published and the fact that there is still some way to go in ensuring equality of remuneration in both the public and the private sector. It is something to which the Government are absolutely committed, which is why we continue to bear down on these discrepancies and will continue to do so.

Julian Brazier: May I urge the Leader of the House to have an early debate on the development of so-called head shops, which are selling dangerous but legal alternatives to cannabis and other drugs? Meridian Television has put together a terrific dossier about that. At a time when we have a ban, a shameful ban, on many traditional herbal medicines, many of these substances, some of them newly developed, are legally available and are being openly sold. They provide highs like those associated with cannabis and harder drugs but are still technically within the law.

Geoff Hoon: I know that this is something that the Home Office monitors and regularly reviews. It is vital that the law is upheld. If the hon. Gentleman has examples of specific instances or areas where the law needs to be updated to reflect threats to the health of the public, I hope that he will make them known.

George Mudie: Yesterday it emerged that the Home Office had agreed a contract with the somewhat controversial property company Mapeley to open 69 high street offices to issue passports. This is work that the Post Office looked to for a future. A fortnight ago the Speaker intervened and forced the Department for Work and Pensions to reveal the contents of its contract on Post Office accounts, which demonstrated that after 2010 pensioners would be forced to use banks. Both those matters threaten the future of 8,500 out of 12,500 post offices. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is a shabby way to treat 4.5 million pensioners, 8,500 sub-postmasters and even Members of this House? Will he use his persuasive powers to bring a Government spokesman here to make a statement on the present policy on the future of the Post Office, or is this

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had a generous allocation.

Geoff Hoon: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I have got the drift.
	This is a serious issue, and one that the House has addressed not only during business questions in recent weeks but on other occasions. To deal with at least one aspect of what my hon. Friend said, no one is suggesting that people should be forced to use the banks. Indeed, I have been at great pains to emphasise that there is a range of accounts available at the post office, many of them simple and straightforward to use, which bring real benefits to pensioners; for example, interest payments. They should be encouraged to use those accounts, preserving the Post Office and its business. I see no reason to be quite so alarmist about the future of the Post Office. The Government strongly support it, and we continue financially to support the post office network, not least in rural areas. It is something to which the Government are committed.

Christopher Chope: Does the Leader of the House deny that proposals to curtail the right of hon. Members to ask ordinary written questions have been circulating in Government circles?

Geoff Hoon: I am not going to comment on leaked documents. [Hon. Members: Ah.] I have made it absolutely clear that this is a matter for the Procedure Committee and, ultimately, for the House. These issues have been debated in the past; for example, by the Procedure Committee and the Modernisation Committee. Serious concern has been expressed by Members of the House about the numbers of questions tabled and, crucially, about the circumstances in which they are tabled. It would be inappropriate not to consider those concerns; otherwise the House will simply allow ever more questions about matters of an ever more routine nature. Indeed, when the matter was last looked at, it seemed clear that many of the questions tabled were of a routine research kind, asking for information that was already in the public domain, and I know that right hon. and hon. Members have expressed concern about that before.

Gwyn Prosser: Yesterday's announcement that the beef ban is to be lifted might have been good news for some farmers, but it was bad news for veal calves and the animal welfare groups that have campaigned to ban live animal exports from Dover? Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the Floor of the House to explore what progress Ministers have made towards ensuring that meat is exported on the hook rather than on the hoof, which is declared Government policy?

Geoff Hoon: I know that that is a long-term ambition of those who rightly campaign to protect animal welfare. The subject has arisen over many years both here and, obviously, in the European Union. The Government take it seriously. I cannot offer my hon. Friend the prospect of an early debate on it, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who has just answered questions, takes a keen interest in such matters.

Peter Robinson: On Monday, we are due to debate the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. It had been the intention of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to amend it to add important proposals for the governance of Northern Ireland. Is that still the Government's intention? If it is, can the Leader of the House take it from me that it is not considered an appropriate vehicle to introduce important constitutional proposals? That should be done in primary legislation on the Floor of the House.

Geoff Hoon: I will not get into the detail of that. I urge the hon. Gentleman, his colleagues and others who represent Northern Ireland constituencies to ensure that progress is made and that there are discussions about improving the governance of Northern Ireland. That is what is important. I know that that is vital to the people of Northern Ireland and those whom he represents. I urge him to use his best endeavours to bring that about.

Clive Betts: May I support the request by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) to discuss the impact of pensions legislation on the parliamentary pension fund in April? I am aware of the correspondence between the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), as chair of the fund's trustees, and the Leader of the House, which goes through a number of the options for changing the rules to the scheme and the complications, which are considerable. May I suggest that it would be appropriate to debate those matters before hon. Members are finally asked to vote on them, so that the trustees and my right hon. Friend get the views of hon. Members on things that could have a serious impact on their future pensions?

Geoff Hoon: I appreciate the concern. I have made it clear that I am willing to discuss that in depth and in detail. As my hon. Friend rightly indicates, and as I have found to my cost, the issues are not simple and straightforward. The complexity of the regulations and the legislation makes me wonder whether it would be entirely appropriate to have a detailed debate. I realise that that is not the best argument, but nevertheless I think that it would be better if we discussed the matter seriously and calmly. I am certainly willing to see him to do that.

Nicholas Winterton: May I warmly support the request by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) relating to parliamentary pensions? It is a critical issue. May I alsothis supports the Leader of the Housecommend the Procedure Committee's report on parliamentary questions, which sought to remove the abuse of the Order Paper, not to restrict hon. Members from asking genuine and important questions?
	However, as the right hon. Gentleman seeks to be a radical, reforming Leader of the House, will he find time to debate critical issues, such as police authority mergers and the restructuring of the health service, in Government time, with substantive motions before the House to be decided on free votes? That would enable hon. Members legitimately and properly to express their views without any influence from Government Whips.

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman was doing so well with his first two observations that I was hoping to be able to say how much I agreed with him, but snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, I recognise that he needed to return to a number of issues that we have debated. I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to discuss specific proposals for police authority mergers if they are not agreed to by local communities. I know that we will come back to that on a regular basis.

Keith Vaz: May we have a debate next week on the guidelines for the provision of stairlifts for elderly people by local authorities? My constituent Vera Cheshire is 78 years of age. She has a colostomy bag, an artificial leg and has lost the use of one of her arms. She has been waiting for 18 months for a stairlift from Liberal-led Leicester city council. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when local authorities fail to discharge their duties, especially to the vulnerable in society, it is important that Ministers intervene and that, at the very least, we should debate such important matters?

Geoff Hoon: As ever, my hon. Friend makes his point, and he does so with considerable force. It is outrageous that anyone should have to wait so long for assistance from their local authority. I am sure that the Liberal Democrat leadership in the House of Commons will look at that as a matter of some urgency.

Alex Salmond: Does the Leader of the House not detect the groundswell of support for a debate on the marketplace for honours established by the Government? Is not it the case that 80p out of every 1 of individual donations to the Labour party comes from people who are subsequently ennobled or knighted by the Government? What about the queue of people, like Dr. Patel, at the House of Lords Appointments Commission who are demanding to know where their peerage is? Having given the money, it is a case of cash for no peerage. Do not we need a debate on the debasing of the political process by the Government in a manner that would make Lloyd George blush?

Geoff Hoon: Clearly, my political antennae are not as well attuned as the hon. Gentleman's. I have not detected a great groundswell. He delivered his press release effectively, and we take account of that matter. Again, I am surprised that he has not given credit to the Government for their efforts to ensure that there is a new and independent system of appointment. I commend him to look at the procedure so that he understands it more thoroughly.

Tony Lloyd: May I refer the Leader of the House to early-day motion 1706, about trade union recognition and the attempts by Asda Wal-Mart to break the trade unions in that company?
	[That this House notes that Asda Wal-Mart has been fined 850,000 in the United Kingdom for offering employees a pay rise to give up union rights at their depot in Washington Tyne and Wear; congratulates the GMB union on its successful campaign on the legal right to maintain union recognition which is fundamental to society; expresses concern over the role of the Portland public relations company in its attempts to discredit the GMB; and further notes that trade unions play a constructive role in the United Kingdom for employees and employers.]
	Will my right hon. Friend advise me how we can use the mechanisms of the House to best get across the message that although American investors are welcome, those who come here with union-busting tactics will be resisted both by the trade unions and by society more generally?

Geoff Hoon: I accept the importance of the rules relating to recognition. The Government have improved those for trade unions. It is right that those who want to join them and achieve appropriate thresholds should be recognised in negotiations with their employer. It is equally important that all employers recognise the law and the relevant rules.

Graham Stuart: Last week, a farmer constituent of mine received a letter from the Rural Payments Agency detailing his single farm payment entitlement. It was accompanied by a 12-page booklet, which explained the terms of the entitlement. He was told that it may or may not be correct, but that contacting the RPA would be a waste of time because it was too busy. Meanwhile, he continues to wait for his entitlement, but has no idea when it will arrive. It has been three years since agriculture was debated in the House in Government time. It is a scandal how farmers are treated in this country. Will the Leader of the House hold a debate on agriculture as soon as possible?

Geoff Hoon: I do not accept the description that the hon. Gentleman uses of the process, not least because for 10 years I represented farmers in Derbyshire. I had regular meetings with them and know how complex the payment system was in those days. I also know how much they complained about the complexity of the arrangements. The purpose of the single farm payment system is to simplify the arrangements. It obviously faced some difficulties in its introduction, but I am confident that the system is better than the one that it replaced.

David Chaytor: May we find time for a debate on the future of maternity services? The Leader of the House might be aware of the plans by the Greater Manchester strategic health authority to rationalise the number of maternity units. He will not yet be aware of the petition of 30,000 signatures that I have received, objecting to any proposal to close the maternity unit at Fairfield hospital in my constituency. Given the high priority given to patient choice in last year's election manifesto, does he agree that it would be utterly illogical to deny to thousands of women in my constituency the right to attend the hospital of their choice to give birth to their children? Fairfield hospital is that choice. May we debate that?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has made his point and he is right to the extent that I am not familiar with the particular circumstances of the situation that he describes. I am not going to argue with him about it, but I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health writes to him setting out in some detail what is happening.

Peter Bone: Yesterday, the Prime Minister stated that nobody has to wait more than six months for their NHS operation, yet at the same time, the Department of Health website showed that many people are still waiting more than six months. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the huge difference between the Prime Minister's statements on the NHS and the reality? And by the way, will

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We can do without the by the way.

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman has made precisely this point already; indeed, I happened to be in the Chamber yesterday when he made it during a point of order. I recognise that he is entitled to repeat it, but I would have appreciated his observations more if he had recognised at the same time that there are 1,500 more nurses, 670 more doctors and 250 more consultants serving his constituents. That is the result of the remarkable extra investment in his constituency and right across the country.

Andrew Gwynne: My right hon. Friend will probably not be aware that Liberal Democrat-controlled Stockport council is increasing its council tax by almost 5 per cent., at the same time as making 10 million-worth of cuts in local services, despite having had a year-on-year increase in Government grant. Given that Stockport council has failed to collect more than 7 million in tax since the Liberal Democrats took control, does my right hon. Friend not think it perhaps time to find an opportunity to debate in the House the poor record of some councils in collecting council tax?

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has made his point very well and I am sure that there will be opportunities on the Adjournment or in Westminster Hall for a debate on the difference between what the Liberal Democrats say in the House and what they do in the country.

Vincent Cable: Is the Leader of the House aware that in many of our constituencies, shopping centres are being decimated by very high rent inflation, precipitated by upward-only rent agreements enforced by commercial landlords? Will he approach the Government Departments concerned and ask them to produce a statement on the various policy options available to alleviate this problem?

Geoff Hoon: This is an issue of great concern to high streets throughout the country and I am aware of its impactI see it for myself in my constituency. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking at it carefully, but equally, the hon. Gentleman should recognise that such locations are subject to market forces. If he makes some submissions on how the Liberal Democrats would deal with this issue, I am sure that they will be looked at with great interest.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service)

Adam Ingram: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want today to announce the settlement package for the Royal Irish (Home Service) personnel being discharged as a result of the Northern Ireland normalisation process. I want also to mention that we have completed work on a related issuethe reduction in the number of Royal Armoured Corps and infantry bands within the Army, as part of the overall work on the future Army structure. As a further part of that work, the band of the Royal Irish Regiment will be disbanded by 31 March 2008, and the Territorial Army band in Northern Ireland will be renamed the Royal Irish Regiment Band (TA). Full details have been provided to the House in a written ministerial statement today.
	The House will recall that on 1 August 2005, the start of the security normalisation process in Northern Ireland was declared. We said then that, should the security situation remain satisfactory, Operation Banner, under which the military provide support to the Police Service of Northern Ireland, will end on 1 August 2007, and that after that there will be no requirement for the three Royal Irish (Home Service) battalions. However, they will be required to support the police in the 2006 marching season.
	I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to these dedicated and brave men and women, who have contributed so much in bringing us to where we are today. We will never forget that more than 200 Royal Irish (Home Service) and Ulster Defence Regiment personnel made the ultimate sacrifice while serving in Northern Ireland. I know that the day of disbandment will be a sad one for the battalions and for each and every member of the Home Service, but we should take the opportunity to look at how far we have come. They should all be rightly proud of the crucial role that they have played in creating the environment for normalisation to begin, and I offer my thanks for their sacrifice and fortitude.
	My Department has been working hard to draw up a settlement package for the military personnel in question, and I am now in a position to provide details of it. In addition to the normal armed forces occupational redundancy and resettlement package, full-time personnel will receive a tax-free, flat-rate ex gratia payment of 28,000. Part-time military personnel will receive a tax-free, flat-rate ex gratia payment of 14,000. These payments are in recognition of the impact that disbandment will have on those serving in the Home Service, and are an acknowledgement of the pressures that they will face on re-integrating into the community.
	All full-time soldiers will be offered normal redundancy terms, which include a lump sum, tax-free compensation payment and, for many, early payment of pension. They will also have access to a full resettlement service, including training and a job-finding service. Part-time Home Service personnel will benefit from a job-finding resettlement service. There will be a bespoke Royal Irish after-care service to provide continuing support; it will be accessible by all former members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and of the Royal Irish (Home Service), as well as their dependants. Exact details of the after-care service are, however, still being worked on.
	I cannot over-emphasise how eager we are for as many Home Service personnel as possible to take the opportunity to continue their career in the armed forces, where they can carry on making a valuable contribution to defence. Consequently, we are offering an alternative taxable engagement bounty of 10,000 to eligible Royal Irish (Home Service) personnel who wish to transfer into, and are accepted into, the general service Army.
	The settlement package will be offered to all Royal Irish (Home Service) officers and soldiers still in service on 31 August 2006. The package has been designed to take into account three factors collectively: first, the pressures and restrictions that members of the Royal Irish (Home Service) faced while serving in their local community, and which are likely to continue to affect them in the immediate aftermath of the regiment's disbandment; secondly, the importance of assisting more than 3,000 of our people as they return to civilian life; and finally, the socio-economic difficulties that they may experience as a result of the regiment's disbandment and their former membership of it.
	Resettlement will commence from 1 January 2007. Full-time soldiers will finish their service in tranches spread over a longer period. The majority will leave between 1 January and 31 July 2007, although a very small number of personnel will be required until 31 March 2008, by which time the process will be complete.
	The package, which goes well beyond statutory entitlements, is well deserved and we hope that it will be well received by Home Service personnel. To put it in context, I give three typical examples. A 22-year-old full-time Home Service private with four years' service would receive a tax-free lump sum payment of about 38,000. A 34-year-old full-time Home Service corporal with 16 years' service would receive a tax-free lump sum payment of about 85,500 and an immediate pension for life. A 43-year-old full-time major with 22 years' service would receive 152,000 and an immediate pension. Overall, the cost of this package to the Ministry of Defence is in the region of 250 million. Everyone will regard this as a very generous package for a unique set of individuals who have made a substantial contribution to the achievement of normalisation in Northern Ireland. Regimental traditions will be preserved by the 1st Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment and by the Territorial Army element, the Royal Irish Rangers, which will remain an integral part of our defence capability.
	The normalisation process will also impact on civilian personnel, and a process of consultation will take place with the trade unions on the civilian redundancies, in accordance with our duties under section 188 of the Trades Unions and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Affected civilian staff will be kept informed of progress, but we will not be in a position to make an announcement until later this year.
	Consideration is also being given to the formal recognition that should be given to mark the unique circumstances faced by the Royal Irish (Home Service) and its antecedents in providing continuous support to the police in Northern Ireland throughout the counter-terrorism campaign. The regiment has been consulted on that, and its views will be given due weight. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement on the matter later in the year.
	I hope that the House will welcome the resettlement package outlined in this statement, and agree with me that it treats the men and women of the Royal Irish (Home Service) fairly and with the dignity and respect that they deserve.

Mark Harper: I join the Minister in praising the contribution of the Royal Irish regiment down the years, and especially those components that form the Ulster Defence Regiment. The Opposition recognise the immense sacrifices that they made during their lengthy period of active operations when Northern Ireland was a focus of terrorist violence. Indeed, they have been on operational duty as long as I have been alive.
	I am sure that I speak for everyone on both sides of the House when I say how pleased we are with the progress being made towards a just and lasting settlement in Northern Ireland. We hope that the talks succeed, but the ninth report of the Independent Monitoring Commission makes it clear that it is very difficult to predict the nature of the threat to public order. Events in the summer and autumn of 2005 confirm that, and show that the police can be placed in a position where they need reinforcements. They also show the potential for extreme violence, including sectarian violence, to erupt suddenly in the course of rioting, and for that violence to include potentially lethal attacks on the security forces. Therefore, what specific measures does the Minister intend to put in place to ensure that the Army will retain the capacity to react adequately, should the security situation deteriorate? We may hope for the best, but we must plan for the worst.
	Given that the Minister has effectively acknowledged that the Army is overstretched, will he reassure the House that the proposed financial arrangements will not act as a disincentive to those wishing to transfer to another regiment? As for the details of the package, we welcome the generous compensation that will be available for our soldiers. They deserve no less.
	Finally, I have a question about Army bands. Given the reduction in the number of bands outlined in written statements, is the Minister able to give a commitment on the future of the Corps of Army Music's headquarters at Kneller hall in Twickenham?

Adam Ingram: On the final question, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place my reply in the Library of the House. I thank him for his comments on the role of the Royal Irish (Home Service), and am sure that they are shared across the House.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the potential for ongoing disturbances in Northern Ireland. He will know that overall responsibility for security matters rests with the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland, obviously with the support of other agencies, including the British armed forces. There is no question but that the Chief Constable is entirely happy with the proposals, but his expert judgment also plays a role. If the conditions and flavour of the times were different, we would not have begun the progressive normalisation process that is welcomed by everyone. Army resources will of course be available, if required, and that is also part of the understanding with the Chief Constable.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the disincentive to transfer to other regiments. We have put up the 10,000 bounty to encourage those who wish to transfer to do so, as we are eager for that to happen. Those who do transfer will forgo the other part of the settlement, but I do not believe that to be a disincentive. We are keen for people to transfer, and the bounty on offer is substantial. I met members of the Home Service on deployment in Iraq, and some of them were already beginning to think about their future career in the Army. That is to be welcomed, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the overall package presented today.

Nick Harvey: I thank the Minister for his statement, and for the notice of it that I was given. I echo the words of tribute that have been paid to the very dedicated and decent people who have done such a demanding job in very difficult circumstances. It is right that they should have a generous package, and I welcome the measures that the Minister has announced today.
	I took over the role as my party's spokesman on defence only a relatively small number of hours ago, since when just about every piece of briefing that I have read has referred to staff shortages, recruitment and retention difficulties, and overstretch, especially in the light of forthcoming engagements in Afghanistan. I am therefore sure that the Minister will understand my surprise at waking up on my first morning in my new post to find that we were due to discuss redundancy packages for armed forces personnel.
	I especially welcome the 10,000 bounty that the Minister has announced to encourage people to stay in the armed services. I am sure that that is the best option. I would welcome an explanation of the practical measures being taken to encourage a positive response, but I applaud that aspect of the package.
	Finally, will the Minister remind the House of the military support that will remain in place for the police in Northern Ireland? As has been noted, there were eruptions of violence last summer and autumn. We hope that they will become things of the past, but it would be complacent to assume that they will.

Adam Ingram: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role as the Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson, and no doubt we will cross swords over some of the issues to which he referred tangentially in his remarks.
	I appreciate that this is the first day in the job for the hon. Gentleman and I assure him that my statement was not deliberately timed to coincide with that. However, given what he said about the way that we use the Army elsewhere, I think that he may have misunderstood the role of the Home Service. It is able to perform its duties only in Northern Ireland. It was established for that purpose, which has of course come to an end as we make progress towards normalisation.
	Many of the people in the Home Service have grown up in a military environment, and have a good understanding of what is required. They are well trained, and many of the skills that they have could be used. They would, of course, need to be retrained to become fully functioning members of the regular Army, but we are offering the 10,000 inducement because we want them to join.
	We recognise that those in full-time service face a particular problem, and a sizeable number of them may want to take this career opportunity. However, we will define more closely the eventual long-term Army strength in Northern Ireland, and at present expect it to be in the region of 5,000 personnel. That would mean that those who transfer to the regular Army could still have their homes close to the regimental base, even though they would also serve on deployment like any other soldiers.
	The package is based on the normalisation process. The hon. Gentleman may wish to make an early visit to Northern Ireland and avail himself of the briefings about what is going on over there. I am sure that he would benefit greatly from doing so, and we will facilitate that as best we can.

Chris Bryant: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister for not hearing the beginning of his statement, but I welcome what he has announced. I visited the Royal Irish with the armed forces parliamentary scheme only seven weeks ago, when we were all immensely impressed by the regiment's long history and tradition and by the perceptions of the future that some of the men revealed in conversation with us. They were aware that the decision that has been taken was necessary, and were proud of the fact that they had a role to play in the change that is taking place in Northern Ireland.
	Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that, although the Army still flies police officers into Crossmaglen, some Army officers think that that may no longer be necessary? When does he hope that it might be possible for a further normalisation of police activities to mean that the intervention of the armed forces is no longer required?

Adam Ingram: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome for the announcement, and he makes some very valid points. He asked about the transportation of key personnel into what could be deemed to be some of the more sensitive areas of Northern Ireland. It rests with the Chief Constable to come to a conclusion about when that might be changed, but at all times we must make careful judgments. That is how we have handled matters, quite properly, over the years. We are unquestionably moving forward rapidly, but we have a duty of care to our personnel at all times. We will ensure that it is properly done, on the best advice available, and it will come, ultimately, from the Chief Constable.

Patrick Cormack: Can the Minister assure the House that everyone who wishes to take the 10,000 will be able to do so?

Adam Ingram: Well, we could have an embarrassment of riches if that happened. I would like to see that happen, but realistically it will not be the case. Given the shortages in the Army, there will be sufficient vacancies, but it is not only a case of people wishing to take the 10,000. We have to ask whether they are suitable or appropriate for transfer. Age and other factors will come into consideration.

Lady Hermon: While I welcome the financial settlements that will enable the courageous men and women of the home battalions of the RIR to leave with dignity, I was bitterly disappointed that the statement made no mention of a fund equivalent to the police fund, which rightly supports the widows and families of police officers who were murdered or maimed by terrorist activity. The Minister knows perfectly well that members of the UDR and, latterly, the RIR have been murdered and maimed alongside RUC personnel in the same terrorist attacks. Will he give me a commitment today, without any hesitation, that the MOD will set up a fund equivalent to the police fund?

Adam Ingram: I well understand the hon. Lady's concern. I mentioned the after-care package in the statement and I am considering the precise elements of the various funds that exist to support those who served in the RUC and the Police Service of Northern Ireland. As the hon. Lady knows better than I, there are several funds, and she mentioned one in particular. I wish to ensure that our after-care package matches that. It may take a different form, because of the different circumstances, but the principles will be the same. That is why I said that the after-care package will be carefully analysed: I do not want to find that we have a discord between two equivalent groups of people who stood together shoulder to shoulder. In many ways, it will best be achieved through the regimental process and letting the Army look after its own. It is the Army family, after all. I take on board the hon. Lady's point, and if the provision does not meet her requirements, I am sure that she will make her views very strongly known.

Ian Paisley: I apologise for being a few minutes late due to circumstances over which I had no control.
	This is a day of shadows for Northern Ireland, because any lessening of the link with the United Kingdom is always looked on with suspicion by Unionists, who are as determined as ever to remain part of the Union. Moreover, the majority of the people of Northern Ireland for whom I speak do not believe that this is a time at which any of our defences against the terrorists should be removed. However, a decision has been made to do away with the Home Service of the Royal Irish. Does the Minister agree that the sacrifices of the Home Service can never be adequately compensated, especially taking into consideration that the members who lived at home had those homes and their families targeted as a result? The price of their life's blood, which many of them sacrificed, cannot be valued. Therefore, does he agree that the enhancement payments are not an attempt to put a price on the sacrifices made by those gallant men and should not be regarded in that way?
	I am sure that the Minister will agree with my colleagues and me that we put to him, the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister as strong a case as we could, based on comparative equality with payments made to the RUC and to prison officers. I must put on the record our thanks to him, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for all their help on the matter, for the way that they listened to the tough talking from the Ulster Members and for doing their best to help us. I am personally glad that the social and economic difficulties that those men have to face in gaining employment in Northern Ireland are recognised by the Government, and we will of course have ongoing talks on those matters.
	I thank the Minister especially for his tribute to the sacrifice and fortitude of those men. They deserve all our gratitude. We salute today the memory of the gallant dead of the regiment and the bravery of all who fought the good fight, and we wish their families God's richest blessing.

Adam Ingram: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his thanks for the way in which we have approached this issue. He is right to say that he and his colleagues made representations, as did the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). The views that were expressed helped us to reach a greater appreciation, if that were necessary, of the need to do the correct and proper thing to mark the contributions and sacrifices made by those who served in the regiment and its battalions, and their antecedents.
	The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the proposals are not about putting a price on sacrifice. We have had to consider a resettlement, knowing that there will be significant difficulties for those who are trying to get back into normal civilian life. We have to set a level, and we now have a substantial package, which is why I gave some examples. I hope that people realise that we are treating the issue seriously. It is a measure of the recognition of the difficulties that some of those brave men and women may face in settling back into civilian life. I hope that the normalisation process will continue apacewe are seeing good progressbecause that will help everyone in Northern Ireland get back to normal. That is what the Government want and I know that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues want it too.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). Having served in the UDR alongside some of my hon. Friends, it is with great pride that I reflect on the contribution that it has made to securing progress in Northern Ireland and protecting all of the community. We salute the sacrifices that have been made to help us to move towards what we hope will be a lasting peace.
	Will the Minister look carefully at the nature and timing of the redundancies? In particular, will he make every effort to ensure that the members, both part-time and full-time, are accommodated when it comes to the timing of their redundancies? Where possible, that should be done on a voluntary basis, and I know that many of the soldiers will be willing to co-operate. I hope that no soldier will be put in the position of being forced to leave if he wishes to remain until the very end. Many of those soldiers, especially the part-time ones, have served in the regiment for more than 35 years. They were there at the beginning, and it is only fair to their honour and dignity that they should be there at the end if that is their wish. I hope that the Minister will find a way to accommodate those part-time and full-time soldiers who wish to remain to end, as well as those who wish to leave earlier on a voluntary basis.

Adam Ingram: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the service he gave as a member of the UDR. He made strong and trenchant points about the role of the UDR and the Royal Irish (Home Service); there is no one better placed to do that. The hon. Gentleman raised issues about the phasing and tranching of the redundancies. Clearly, we have to have some structure. The bulk of the full-timers will go by the earlier date that I indicated in my statement. This has to be managed in a progressive way. We will try to be sensitive to the wishes of individuals at all times, but we have to meet the commitments to try to reduce the numbers as we go forward. In addition, there are operational needs because the 2006 marching season is still to be faced.
	The part-timers have made representations to me on this, and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) has highlighted the sensitivity of this issue. The difficulty is that if everyone wishes to remain in until the very end, that will not be until 2008 and it is not practicable. I do not think that any other date would make it easier. I will take this matter away and reflect on it, as we have done throughout the process, but I am setting out the difficulties. One of the ways in which we are seeking to address the desire of people to be there when, effectively, the flag comes down, is to have a ceremony, which we are planning for later this year so that the bulk of those affected will still be in service. The final arrangements have not been made and a number of processes remain to be gone through, but we are planning something later in the year. I mentioned this in my statement and will make an announcement in due course. We are trying to be as sensitive as possible and I will take on board the point that has been made.

Mark Francois: I echo other Members in paying tribute to the Home Service battalions and to the Ulster Defence Regiment. They did a difficult job very bravely in tough circumstances. I shall ask the Defence Minister a defence-related question. Given the pressure on the regular and Territorial Army and the problems of overstretch, particularly in the infantry, did Ministers consider attempting to re-role these three battalions either as regular soldiers or as Territorial Army battalions, which have traditionally never been involved in the security situation in Northern Ireland? That would have allowed them to continue as formed units and make an active contribution to the defence of the realm. At a time when we have lost far too many infantry battalions, why are we now prepared to stand by and lose three more? It seems to make no sense.

Adam Ingram: It does make sense, but before I retort in my usual way to some of the issues to which the hon. Gentleman pointedly referred, I thank him for his earlier comments. There was a request and issues were raised about the possibility of retaining incremental companies. The Army looked at that possibility and rejected it. It was not rejected as a result of some political overlay. The Army did not believe it to be the appropriate way forward. We have taken best military advice on this.
	I point to the 10,000 bounty, which is very considerable. For many of these soldiers, the transition from what they are currently doing to the regular Army would not be difficult. There would have to be retraining, there would be issues associated with full evac and the future Army lay-down in Northern Irelanda garrison 5,000-strong is plannedwould have to be borne in mind. Therefore, there could be many of the elements for which the hon. Gentleman is asking.
	The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) asked whether everyone who applies will get their wish. That will depend on the factors at the time, but we could effectively have what the hon. Gentleman is asking for if those people make that choice. There is nothing to stop them doing so, and, if they wish, many hundreds could do what the hon. Gentleman wants to see happen.

Ben Wallace: I wish to place on record my salute to members of the Royal Irish Regiment, formerly the Ulster Defence Regiment, whom I served alongside in Northern Ireland for a number of years. They were some of the bravest members of the security forces and, unlike many regulars, they went home at the end of their patrols and lived in the community, often in danger. What measures will be put in place to protect individuals who live in very republican communities, often in rural areas, for whom danger will go on after their regiment has been disbanded?
	Will any of these people remain in the reserve? The ninth Independent Monitoring Commission report stated that although the situation is heading towards normalisation, it is volatile. If these people remain in the reserve, there would be an asset to take advantage of in the future.
	There is also the element of cost. We know that the MOD is strapped for cash and is facing many commitments. What discussions has the Minister had with the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, his hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward)? What assistance has he had from that Department, or other Government Departments, to pay the 25 million so that we do not see reductions in armed services elsewhere as a result of this generous offer?

Adam Ingram: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service in the armed forces and the role that he played as an individual soldier in getting us to this position of normalisation.
	We are not strapped for cash. We have had a very significant settlement. The demands are unquestionably great and can grow exponentially at times, but we have to balance resources. We have laid down a considerable package. The Northern Ireland Office went through this process with the conversion of the RUC to the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I cannot remember the total sum involved in that, but it was another considerable package. However, this is a debt of honour to our people and cannot be seen as compensation. To squabble about money would be unseemly. We have done what we believe to be right. It has been well received across Northern Ireland and, if not, I will hear about it from those who currently serve. We have had a flavour of how well it has been received, although there are still some concerns to be addressed.
	The protection of those who have gone back to civilian life is a matter for security assessment within Northern Ireland and rests with the Chief Constable. We have always shown our willingness to look after people in that part of the United Kingdom. I do not see that changing.

Several hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now move on to the next business.

BILL PRESENTED

Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Amendment)

Keith Vaz presented a Bill to amend the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to establish a right of appeal in relation to the amount of compensation payable under section 133 of that Act and to make provision about the procedure for the assessment of such amounts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March, and to be printed. [Bill 143].

Orders of the Day
	  
	Childcare Bill

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 1
	  
	Power of Constable to Assist in Exercise of Powers of Entry

'(1)   A person authorised for the purpose of subsection (1) or (2) of section 77 may apply to a court for a warrant under this section.
	(2)   If it appears to the court that the authorised person
	(a)   has attempted to exercise a power conferred on him by section 77 but has been prevented from doing so, or
	(b)   is likely to be prevented from exercising any such power, the court may issue a warrant authorising any constable to assist that person in the exercise of the power, using reasonable force if necessary.
	(3)   A warrant issued under this section must be addressed to, and executed by, a constable.
	(4)   Schedule 11 to the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) (jurisdiction of courts) applies in relation to proceedings under this section as if they were proceedings under that Act.
	(5)   In this section, court means the High Court, a county court or a magistrates' court but this is subject to any provision which may be made (by virtue of subsection (4)) by or under Schedule 11 to the Children Act 1989 (c. 41).'.[Maria Eagle.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Maria Eagle: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 18.

Maria Eagle: It is a pleasure to resume our deliberations on the Bill. I hope that we shall be able to deal with the outstanding issues succinctly; I shall certainly attempt to do so.
	New clause 1 allows persons authorised under clause 77 to apply to the court for a warrant for a constable to support them. It is purely a technical, tidying amendmentwhich means that we forgot to deal with it earlierto ensure that the power under section 102 of the Children Act 1989 of a constable to assist is carried forward appropriately to the legislation. It would enable the court to issue a warrant in cases where it appeared that Ofsted had been prevented, or was likely to be prevented, from exercising powers under clause 77. Fortunately for all concerned, such applications have been extremely rare so we do not expect the provision to be needed frequently; none the less, it makes sense to include it.
	Amendment No. 18 simply tidies up the impact of the new clause by adding a power for a constable to assist in respect of family proceedings. On that basis, I commend the provisions to the House.

Tim Loughton: I shall not detain the House on these technical amendments, which the Minister was gracious enough to admit might have been dealt with earlier.
	On a general note, however, the Government recently tabled a number of amendments for discussion today, several of which are completely new provisions, yet no accompanying explanatory notes or letters from the Minister have been forthcoming. That is not helpful. Usually when the Government table amendments on new matters, one would expect an explanation, as a courtesy at least.
	Furthermore, I notice from the Order Paper that the Secretary of State is making a written statement on Safeguarding in early years and childcare, which I presume is germane to the Bill, yet neither I nor my hon. Friendsnor, I suspect, the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who speaks for the Liberal Democratsreceived notice of that statement. My office rang the Minister's office this morning and we were promised that a copy would be e-mailed straightaway, but that has not appeared. That is regrettable, especially in the light of what happened last week with the Children and Adoption Bill, when Opposition Members were not notified about the imminent publication of a report that was absolutely germane to the business, and was referred to during that business by the Minister of State. That is a shame, because it diminishes the detail of our debate at a late but crucial stage.
	I am thus not in a position to take issue with the points that the Under-Secretary of State has just made, although based on a scant reading of the provisions, we do not want to raise any objections to them. However, it would have been nice to receive an explanation of them sooner.

Maria Eagle: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for the fact that we do not appear to have managed to do what we said we would do, and get those details and the written statement over to Opposition spokesmen. It was certainly our intention to do so, and I undertake to find out why that did not happen. I am the first to admit that the situation is not satisfactory; I can but apologise.
	It seems, however, that the Opposition do not take exception to the new clause and the amendment[Interruption.] I have just received some late information. The detail that we hoped to pass to the Opposition was placed on the letter boardI assume, this morningso we attempted to inform them. I shall try to find out what went wrong and when, and I will talk to the hon. Gentleman about it outside the Chamber.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2
	  
	Provision of Information About Young Children: England

'(1)   Regulations may make provision, in relation to England, requiring
	(a)   a person registered as an early years provider under Chapter 2 of Part 3, and
	(b)   a person who provides early years provision in respect of which, but for section 34(2) (exemption for provision for children aged 3 or over at certain schools), he would be required to be registered under that Chapter, to provide to the relevant person such individual child information as may be prescribed.
	(2)   In subsection (1), the relevant person means one or more of the following
	(a)   the Secretary of State, and
	(b)   any prescribed person.
	(3)   Where any person within paragraph (b) of subsection (2) receives information by virtue of subsection (1), the Secretary of State may require that person to provide any such information
	(a)   to the Secretary of State, or
	(b)   to any prescribed person.
	(4)   The Secretary of State may provide any individual child information
	(a)   to any information collator,
	(b)   to any prescribed person, or
	(c)   to any person falling within a prescribed category.
	(5)   Any information collator
	(a)   may provide any individual child information
	(i)   to the Secretary of State, or
	(ii)   to any other information collator, and
	(b)   may at such times as the Secretary of State may determine or in prescribed circumstances provide such individual child information as may be prescribed
	(i)   to any prescribed person, or
	(ii)   to any person falling within a prescribed category.
	(6)   Any person holding any individual child information (other than the Secretary of State or an information collator) may provide that information to
	(a)   the Secretary of State,
	(b)   any information collator, or
	(c)   any prescribed person.
	(7)   No information received under or by virtue of this section shall be published in any form which includes the name of the child or children to whom it relates.
	(8)   Regulations under this section may provide that, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, the provision of information to a person other than the Secretary of State is to be treated, for the purposes of any provision of such regulations or this section, as compliance with any requirement imposed by or by virtue of any such provision and relating to the provision of information to the Secretary of State.
	(9)   In this section early years provision has the meaning given by section 20; individual child information means information relating to and identifying individual children for whom early years provision is being or has been provided by a person mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b), whether obtained under subsection (1) or otherwise; information collator means any body which, for the purposes of or in connection with the functions of the Secretary of State relating to early years provision, is responsible for collating or checking information relating to children for whom such provision is made; prescribed means prescribed by regulations; regulations means regulations made by the Secretary of State.'.[Beverley Hughes.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 3Provision of information about young children: transitory provision.
	Government new clause 4Provision of information about children: Wales.
	Government amendments Nos. 26 and 27.

Beverley Hughes: The purpose of the new clauses and amendments is to allow for a significant improvement in the quality and accuracy of the information we collect about early years provisionthat is, integrated child care and early education for children under school age. It will enable more accurate funding to follow the delivery of nursery entitlement for three and four-year-olds and provide essential support to local authorities in the fulfilment of those duties under the Bill.
	The provisions will enable the Secretary of State and other prescribed persons, such as local authorities, to collect individual child-level information from all registered providers of early years provision in England, in line with the reformed regulatory and inspection framework in the Bill. In Wales, the powers will apply under relevant legislation, consistent with the regulatory framework in Wales. The powers are not to demand information from parents but for local authorities to collect information that providers will hold already.
	A key purpose of the power is to manage better the funding of free nursery education provision. At present, the information collected by the Government from local government about free entitlement is aggregated information on all the children enrolled with each private, voluntary or independent provider, rather than individual child-level information. Holding such child-level information will reduce the risk of double counting, which we think is happening to some extent at present, where parents use more than one provider for their free nursery entitlement.
	We are building on the success of that entitlement, progressively increasing the number of hours and weeks, so an increasing amount of public funding is being used to support it. It is thus important that providers receive money for what they actually provide for each child.
	There are some other reasons for the provisions. The duty for local authorities to improve outcomes for all children and reduce inequalities is one of the cornerstones of the Bill. Local authorities need a full range of information about children in early years provision, to ensure that they are fulfilling that duty. It is also important for central Government to have that information to evaluate effectively the success of the policy. This enabling power to collect information from all early years providers will show how much provision each child receives, and where, and will supply outcome measurements, such as the foundation stage profile.
	We shall hold full consultations on draft regulations carrying the detail of the proposals. We shall also take careful account of the views of stakeholders, providers and local authorities on how the power is implemented. The ability to collect accurate and robust individual child-level information is essential to ensure the proper allocation of funding and to support local authorities in delivering better outcomes for all children. Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 are consequential, to ensure that the provisions on data collection can be commenced by the appropriate authority at the appropriate time.
	I commend the new clause to the House.

Tim Loughton: The new clauses are quite chunky, and again I make the point that we had no inkling about them in Committee. It is not clear whether these provisions are connected to the child safeguarding provisions in the next group and which in turn have connections to the forthcoming Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill. From what the Minister said, it would appear that they are more to do with a numbers exercise, to ensure that the correct figures are analysed. If that is the case, the Opposition certainly have some concerns about the wide-reaching nature of new clause 2.
	New clause 2, as I understand it, places obligations, through regulation, on various people involved in child care to provide information, not about children in general, but individual child information, the nature of which we do not know. According to subsection (3), the information can be provided to the Secretary of State or any prescribed person. Who will those prescribed persons be? Will it be you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or will it be me? Who will be involved?
	Subsection (4) is even more wide-ranging. It states that the Secretary of State
	may provide any individual child information.
	That is, it appears, without any exemptions. The subsection continues
	to any information collator.
	Who will those information collators be? Who will be licensed or allowed to collect, analyse, view and disseminate this information to any prescribed person, as mentioned in paragraph (b), or
	to any person falling within a prescribed category?
	Not many members of the population are left out.
	There is then the provision that any information collator may pass on information to any other information collator. All the way through, the new clause appears to give enormous powers to the Secretary of State to decide who he thinks should handle, interpret, collate and act on this information. We do not have an inkling about these people, not least because we have had no explanation of this quite powerful new clause. It appears that the only safeguard is in subsection (7), which reads:
	No information received under or by virtue of this section shall be published in any form which includes the name of the child.
	That may be unavoidable in some circumstanceswhen child care is provided on a one-to-one basis, for example, or in small groups.
	I fear that the new clause has been put together belatedly and perhaps rather hurriedly. I have serious concerns about whether it conflicts with the Children Act 2004. This matter was handled by the Minister's predecessor, but she may recallthe hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) certainly willthat we had lengthy debates about the nature of the information databases. The Opposition continue to have serious concerns about themand those databases are now beginning to be put into operation.
	One of the safeguards that we were givenspecifically written into the Actappears in section 12(4)(h). It is that information of such other description may be put on to these databases. Specifically, medical records are not included, or such other personal records as the Secretary of State may by regulation specify. In that measure, the sharing of information was specifically curtailed for medical records. For very good reasons, we supported that. There were other categories involved as well. We do not appear to have such safeguards in the new clause.
	Individual child informationnot numberscan be produced and must be produced as requested, and passed on to an indeterminate group or groups of people to do indeterminate things with it. Medical records, among other things, are not specifically exempted. Does the Minister agree that there is a potential conflict with that section of the 2004 Act? Can she give me some assurances that that was not intended, and say whether some further detail will be added to ensure that such a conflict cannot happen?
	Will the Minister identify who the information collators are likely to be, and what they are expected to do with the information? I want a definition of what individual child information is likely to amount to. That is important. Much in the 2004 Act was essential to promote the sharing of information among professionals in dealing with vulnerable children who might be at risk of harm. We agreed with that, and that was the thrust of what became the 2004 Act. There were also some perfectly good provisions that protected the confidentiality of children and their parents. Those provisions seem to have been ignored in the framing of new clause 2. I would be grateful if the Minister gave us some more detailwhich was, alas, not forthcoming before today's deliberations.

Annette Brooke: I concur 100 per cent. with the hon. Gentleman. At the top of my copy of the amendment paper I wrote Child Protection. I assumed that the provision was an extension of what we were talking about with the Children Act 2004 in the context of databases. There were some words of reassurance that we were considering numbers relating to payments, but that was not how I understood it. That might be blamed on my interpretation. However, other people might have made the same error. If I had had a red pen in my hand, the amendment paper would have been covered in comments about ambiguity and non-understanding of terms.
	Subsection (1) reads
	such individual child information as may be prescribed.
	That means nothing to me. We then have the prescribed person. I turn over, as it were, to the regulations and the notes and I read that prescribed means prescribed by regulations. I do not think that I have ever seen such accompanying notesif they can be called thatwhich actually say nothing.
	Then we have the information collator. I had no idea how wide that definition was. I did not know whether it went beyond local authority employees. We then have the phrase:
	to any other information collator.
	I have made some notes along subsection (7) that there was a slight saving grace in that there will be no publication of
	the name of the child or children to whom it relates.
	I have the greatest concern about accepting the new clause without either a clear statement from the Minister today or an undertaking that there will be a clear statement as the Bill progresses through its stages of consideration. I am concerned about the whole.
	The Minister's predecessor was extremely helpful to one of my constituents who was refused funding as a provider. It appears that my local authority had been misinterpreting regulations about how funding could be used and where. That shows that we must be absolutely clear about the regulations on the allocation of funding. The problem arose in the context of someone who was being denied funding for a nursery place, and I am grateful to the Minister's Department for sorting that out for me.

Justine Greening: I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). The new clause is far too broad. The Government need to be far clearer about what they are trying to achieve with a measure that they seek to introduce at such a late stage in the consideration of the Bill. There is a real danger that parents throughout the country will be concerned about the level of information being collected on their children. It would be ironic if parents were dissuaded from using child-minding services because of concern about the collecting of information that would then be permitted about their child.
	We must examine closely what the clause seeks to achieve and whether the information powers that it contains are excessive to achieve the Government's objectives. I hope that the Minister can confirm what the Government are seeking to achieve and why they need particular information. Perhaps it will be possible to be more specific about what information will be collected, by whom, by what powers, when, how regularly, where it will be stored, who will have access to the database, and perhaps the central control of the information. If so, the House would be able to say much more confidently whether the proposal before us is good or bad.
	I am worried that the reference to any information collator could include the Child Support Agency, and could apply to cases in which non-contact orders have been made. The new clauses do not make any reference to the Data Protection Act 1998, which may conflict with them. I find it difficult to believe that there is any information about the child care industry that it not made available to the Government. Can the Minister clarify the nature of the information that she lacks? The Opposition are struggling to understand why the new clauses are necessary.

Beverley Hughes: I sympathise with hon. Members who are anxious about new clauses that have been tabled late in the proceedings, and I shall try to deal with their concerns. Government new clause 2 reflects provisions in the Education and Inspections Bill on individual child data in schools. Those are based on provisions in section 537A of the Education Act 1996, which was passed under the previous Administration. The powers in the new clause are almost identical to those provisions because, as I have tried to outline, we have made a big push on early-years provision, so they need to apply to that sector too.
	The power is an enabling one, based on the long-standing provisions in the 1996 Act. Hon. Members are understandably anxious to probe the nature of the information that will be provided. That will be dealt with in detailed regulations, which will define the nature of the data collected and identify those who can collect it. Information collators may be local authority officers, civil service statisticians or anyone who has the right to collate information on behalf of Government. There is therefore a circumscribed group of people who can collect that information.

Tim Loughton: Will all the people who are given powers as information collators be subject to scrutiny under the Bichard proposals in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill? Can the Minister guarantee that anyone who is nominated as a collator who has access to that information will be vetted accordingly?

Beverley Hughes: The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill proposes that specific groups of people will be subject to the highest level checks in the barring and vetting scheme if they collect or collate information. Those groups include people who are responsible for the updating and upkeep of data and procedures on the information-sharing index to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. I will go away and ask if those people, and the data provision under the new clause, will be caught. My understanding is that they will not, because that data and information is not of the same order, but I shall certainly ask about that.

Tim Loughton: I am rather alarmed by that reply, as I thought that the Minister was going to say, Yes, obviously. Those people will be in receipt of a great deal of information about where children are, what they do there, how many children there are, what their hours of attendance are, what sort of services they receive and which staff deal with them. It is essential to vet such people because if they had bad intentions they could use that information themselves or pass it on to others who might use it for purposes for which it was not intended. I therefore hope that the Minister will do a little more than go away and check. I hope that she will go away and make sure that the provision is watertight.

Beverley Hughes: As I told the hon. Gentleman, a compulsory check at the highest level will be made on the people administering the information-sharing index, but we have yet to finalise which groups of people are affected and which level of check will be imposed on those working in local authorities. That is an issue to which we will return during proceedings on the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill.
	Hon. Members may be reassured to learn that current arrangements involve the transfer of individual child information from providers to local authorities. In the new clause we are seeking to standardise that practice. A survey that we conducted in December among a large number of local authorities demonstrated that the majority already collect information about early years settings on an individual child basis. The Department for Education and Skills requires that information to be sent to it in an aggregated form.
	Many local authorities welcome the proposal to mirror the way in which school data is provided so that individual child information can be passed on to the Department, becauseto answer the hon. Gentleman's questionthat will reduce their workload and make their task much simpler. I accept that that does not take into account concerns about the kind of information collected, but we envisage that the amount of that information will be limited. It could include identifying information on children such as gender and ethnicity, whether they receive special educational needs provision, and, of course, the number of hours that they spend in the setting, including the number of funded hours. That is essential because, as I said at the beginning of our debate, some providers lose out if parents take up the free nursery education offer with a number of different providers. Because the information that the Department receives is aggregated, we cannot ensure that funding flows to the providers who are caring for the child for a certain number of hours a week. Providers are particularly concerned about that, as hon. Members will appreciate.

Annette Brooke: When the regulations are published, will the Minister include a requirement that the local authority must not keep information on certain things? I am sure that we all accept the examples that she has given, but much more detail could be requested, and the new clause would permit a considerable amount of information to be held.

Beverley Hughes: It will not be necessary to include things on which the local authority must not hold information, because local authorities and providers can only hold and pass on information if the regulations empower them to do so. Indeed, that information is already circumscribed. For example, it is legally not possible for information on medical records to be held and passed on. We are simply talking about identifying information and the number of hours and weeks that the child spends in the setting. Such information can help us to assess whether child outcomes are achieved by local authorities.

Tim Loughton: I hope that the Minister understands why we are trying to establish the detail of the proposal. She said that medical records were exempt, and would not be kept on the databasea point that I made in relation to section 12 of the Children Act 2004. Does one provision override the other? The new clause does not refer to the 2004 Act or to the exemptions in it, so is there a measure that makes it explicit that the new clause is subject to those exemptions? The exemptions apply to national and local databases, and will not necessarily apply to the database that will be collated. I am not sure that there is an interconnection.

Beverley Hughes: Existing legislation is not swept away, as the hon. Gentleman will know from his careful reading of the clauses. The provisions that prevent the holding and passing on of medical records at present will take precedence.
	For both reasonsfor the flow of funding, and in order to assess whether local authorities are meeting their duty on outcomes for children in the roundwe need the information. It is routinely held and passed on by providers and local authorities. It is important that we standardise that. Our survey of local authorities showed that some were collecting some information and others were collecting other information. The regulations will standardise the collection of information.

Justine Greening: I understand how the information might be used by central Government, but it seems slightly contradictory that the Bill gives powers and duties to local authorities to make sure that child care provision is available locally. I have many young parents living in my constituency, Putney, and I question whether the level of detail is appropriate. Local authorities are being given powers and duties to provide child minding and child care facilities, but the Secretary of State is seeking such a level of detail that the Department could interfere in individual nurseries. Surely it is for local authorities to take decisions. Why does the Department need such detail? Why can it not accept the summary detail that it gets in other areas of education?

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Lady is wrong about that. The level of detail that relates to children of other ages is not aggregate. Local authorities must increasingly provide individual level data, because the funding flows from Government to local authorities. Local authorities may allocate it, but the level of provision is based on numbers of children, and in this instance, where those children are accessing the free nursery entitlement that the Government have provided. We want the money to flow more effectively to the providers. In order to give parents more flexibility, so that they have a range of options for that nursery offer, we need to make sure that we can disaggregate in the case of children for whom the offer is spread over a number of different providers. That is happening now and providers are losing out, because only one provider is getting the total amount of money, whereas there might be another one, two or three providers who have the child for part of the week but are not getting the money that flows from that.
	The other important issue is the outcomes duty. Local authorities will want to test themselves as to how far, for the population as a whole, they are improving outcomes for children and reducing inequality. We as a Department want to assure ourselves that local authorities are fulfilling the terms of that duty. There will, of course, be further opportunity to discuss the matter in the other place, and I can assure hon. Members that further details of how we envisage the measure working, short of the regulations, will be available for that debate.

Tim Loughton: Before the Minister finishes, can she explain what subsection (1) of new clause 3 means? It states:
	Section (Provision of information about young children: England) has effect with the modifications specified in subsections (2) and (3) until section 7 comes into force.
	Which section 7 and which Act does that refer to? I cannot work it out.

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman has a smile on his face, as if he thinks he has caught me out, but I think he will find that I have a sound and accurate explanation for him. New clause 3 makes transitional arrangements to enable data to be collected from funded nursery education before the provisions in new clause 2 come into force. New clause 2 will come into force as a whole in September 2008 for all providers, but for providers who are already getting funding for nursery education, we can legitimately get that information, which will of course be partial, earlier because it is already being collected. The new clause gives the legal power for a transitional arrangement to enable that to be done for a year, before the full force of new clause 2 takes effect. Section 7, therefore, is the present clause 7 of the Bill.

Roger Williams: As I understand the Minister's comments, new clause 3 covers the period before new clause 2 comes into force. What will happen in Wales? New clause 4 mirrors new clause 2, but there is no mirror of new clause 3.

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman might have got me there. As he says, new clause 4 enables the regulations to take effect, allowing the Welsh Assembly to collect individual child level data. It may well be for the Assembly to decide on any transitional arrangements. I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman gets an accurate answer to that question.
	There will be opportunity to discuss the new clauses in another place, and before those discussions take place, there will be further information about what we envisage.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3
	  
	Provision of Information About Young Children: Transitory Provision

'(1)   Section (Provision of information about young children: England) has effect with the modifications specified in subsections (2) and (3) until section 7 comes into force.
	(2)   In subsection (1)
	(a)   after requiring insert a person who provides funded nursery education, and
	(b)   omit paragraphs (a) and (b).
	(3)   In subsection (9)
	(a)   for the definition of early years provision substitute
	funded nursery education means nursery education, within the meaning of Part 5 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31), which is provided by any person
	  (a)   under arrangements made with that person by   a local education authority in England in   pursuance of the duty imposed on the authority   by section 118 of that Act (duty of LEA to secure   sufficient nursery education), and
	  (b)   in consideration of financial assistance   provided by the authority under those   arrangements, other than such education provided by a school for its pupils;,
	(b)   for the definition of individual child information substitute
	individual child information means information relating to and identifying individual children for whom funded nursery education is being or has been provided, whether obtained under subsection (1) or otherwise;, and
	(c)   in the definition of information collator for early years provision substitute funded nursery education.'. [Beverley Hughes.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4
	  
	Provision of Information About Children: Wales

'(1)   Regulations may make provision, in relation to Wales, requiring
	(a)   a person who is registered under Part 10A of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) to provide child minding or day care, and
	(b)   a person who provides funded nursery education, to provide to the relevant person such individual child information as may be prescribed.
	(2)   In subsection (1), the relevant person means one or more of the following
	(a)   the Assembly, and
	(b)   any prescribed person.
	(3)   Where any person within paragraph (b) of subsection (2) receives information by virtue of subsection (1), the Assembly may require that person to provide any such information
	(a)   to the Assembly, or
	(b)   to any prescribed person.
	(4)   The Assembly may provide any individual child information
	(a)   to any information collator,
	(b)   to any prescribed person, or
	(c)   to any person falling within a prescribed category.
	(5)   Any information collator
	(a)   may provide any individual child information
	(i)   to the Assembly, or
	(ii)   to any other information collator, and
	(b)   may at such times as the Assembly may determine or in prescribed circumstances provide such individual child information as may be prescribed
	(i)   to any prescribed person, or
	(ii)   to any person falling within a prescribed category.
	(6)   Any person holding any individual child information (other than the Assembly or an information collator) may provide that information to
	(a)   the Assembly,
	(b)   any information collator, or
	(c)   any prescribed person.
	(7)   No information received under or by virtue of this section shall be published in any form which includes the name of the child or children to whom it relates.
	(8)   Regulations under this section may provide that, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, the provision of information to a person other than the Assembly is to be treated, for the purposes of any provision of such regulations or this section, as compliance with any requirement imposed by or by virtue of any such provision and relating to the provision of information to the Assembly.
	(9)   In this section child minding and day care have the same meaning as in Part 10A of the Children Act 1989 (c.41); funded nursery education means nursery education, within the meaning of Part 5 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c. 31), which is provided by any person
	(a)   under arrangements made with that person by a local education authority in Wales in pursuance of the duty imposed on the authority by section 118 of that Act (duty of LEA to secure sufficient nursery education), and
	(b)   in consideration of financial assistance provided by the authority under those arrangements, other than such education provided by a school for its pupils; individual child information means information relating to and identifying individual children for whom child minding, day care or funded nursery education is being or has been provided, whether obtained under subsection (1) or otherwise; information collator means any body which, for the purposes of or in connection with the functions of the Assembly relating to child minding, day care or funded nursery education (as the case may be), is responsible for collating or checking information relating to children for whom such provision is made; prescribed means prescribed by regulations; regulations means regulations made by the Assembly.'.[Beverley Hughes.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5
	  
	Disqualification for Registration Under Children Act 1989

'(1)   Paragraph 4 of Schedule 9A to the Children Act 1989 (c.41) (disqualification for registration) is amended as follows.
	(2)   In sub-paragraph (2)
	(a)   in paragraph (b) after children insert or on grounds relating to his health, and
	(b)   after paragraph (g) insert
	(ga)   he has been given a caution in respect of any offence of a prescribed kind;.
	(3)   For sub-paragraph (6) substitute
	(6)   In this paragraph caution includes a reprimand or warning within the meaning of section 65 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; enactment means any enactment having effect, at any time, in any part of the United Kingdom..'.[Maria Eagle.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Maria Eagle: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 49, in page 7, line 2, clause 12, at end insert
	';
	(d)   child protection arrangements'.
	Government amendments Nos. 19 to 25.
	Government amendments Nos. 28 and 29.
	Before we discuss this group of amendments, I must tell the House that an error was made in printing Government new clause 5. A corrected version has been placed in the Vote Office, which I understand has been available to Members. I am given an assurance that the corrections are not of any great import.

Maria Eagle: The amendments fall into two groups. I shall leave amendment No. 49 until the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has spoken to it.
	New clause 5 and Government amendments Nos. 22, 23, 24, 25, 28 and 29 enable the Secretary of State to make regulations disqualifying from registration persons who are barred from working in schools on the grounds of ill health and those who have been cautioned by the police for an offence. Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 add to the Bill specific mention that regulations which govern the activities of providers registered under part 3 may deal with arrangements for safeguarding the children concerned. That arises from my consideration following our deliberations in Committee, so I hope that that small group of amendments, at least, will please Opposition Members and that we may get some kind words about them. We will wait and see.
	Paragraph 4 of schedule 9A to the Children Act 1989 sets out certain grounds on which an individual can be disqualified from providing day care or child minding. Individuals can already be disqualified from providing child care on the grounds of convictions for sexual and violent offences, or orders that show that such a person is unsuitable to work with children, or because his name is included on the Protection of Children Act list, or because the person is subject to a direction under section 142 of the Education Act 2002in other words, the person is on List 99, on the grounds that he is unsuitable to work with children.
	In light of the statement from the Secretary of State on 19 January following an urgent review of barring procedures in schools, two small additions have been identified that are necessary to ensure that disqualification from providing child care works on a similar basis to disqualification in schools. The additions are those whose names are recorded on List 99 on the grounds of ill health. Such directions are made when, for example, a person has a medical condition such as alcohol or substance misuse which means that they are considered to pose a threat to the safety or welfare of children. We also want to include those who have received a caution from the police for particular offences, and we intend to use that power in relation to cautions received for serious sexual or violent offences.
	As a caution involves an admission of guilt, we want to include disqualification on the grounds of cautions in respect of any of the offences currently listed in the disqualification regulations that might otherwise result in a conviction. That change to the current legislation will ensure that we can provide additional safeguards at the earliest possible opportunity. Hon. Members have already referred to the new Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill, and when the new system comes into force, the Secretary of State will require the same powers, which is why we have introduced amendments Nos. 22 to 25.
	On amendments Nos. 19 to 21, we have made it clear throughout that children should be safeguarded and protected from harm and neglect when they are in the care of a child care provider. Hon. Members will recall that during the last day in Committee I made a commitment to look further into whether the Bill should be amended explicitly to address the issue of safeguarding. That commitment was in response to amendments that sought to place a duty on early and later years providers to consider the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.
	We have considered the matter further and have concluded that that point was well made and that such a provision should be included in the Bill. When children are in the care of a child care provider, it is crucial that they are safeguarded and protected from harm. We propose to strengthen and make explicit the position of safeguarding in the Bill. Rather than introducing an overarching duty with a power to make statutory guidance, we have decided to make it clear in the Bill that matters which may be dealt with by regulations include arrangements for safeguarding as well as
	the welfare of the children concerned.
	Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 will send a clear signal to providers that they are responsible for safeguarding children in their care, which will hopefully contribute to the creation of a culture and ethos that reflects that responsibility. The requirements will be set out in secondary legislation, and they will be checked as part of the registration and inspection arrangements. They will be mandatory, and a breach by a provider may result in registration being removed. Such requirements may include the implementation of the appropriate child protection procedures based on current national standards. In addition, providers must meet certain registration requirements in order to be registered in the first place, including that they are not unsuitable to work with young children. They will not be granted registration if, for example, there is information on enhanced criminal records disclosures that suggests that they are unsuitable to work with children.

Tim Loughton: The amendments deal with child protection, which we have raised before. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge in the three months in which we have been waiting patiently for the final stages of this Bill. I am delighted that we have been joined by a Childcare Bill veteran, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening)it seems so long ago when the Bill was in Committee. I have also been joined by two new recruits who will beef up our whole approach to children and child care: my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), who is shadow spokesman for child care, and my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller), who is a member of our education team and who speaks on children's issues, young people and families. That shows that we take our cross-departmental responsibilities on children very seriously.

Annette Brooke: I applaud that breadth of experience, but we frequently refer to Wales in our work on children's issues.

Tim Loughton: We could create even more of an imbalance between the Front Bench and the Back Benches by drafting in some of our hon. Friends from the shadow Wales team, who take child protection seriously. We have discussed the matter with them and our colleagues in the Welsh Assembly, because the issue of child protection extends beyond Offa's dyke.
	Government new clause 5 amends schedule 9A to the Children Act 1989. It is frustrating when Acts are amended by subsequent legislation and when we are provided only with the original legislation. My copy of the Children Act 1989 provided by the Table Office does not include schedule 9A, which was added later. As a general point, it would be useful if the Table Office were to keep supplies of updated legislation, because I have been unable to obtain the exact wording of schedule 9A. Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to provide hon. Members with the original wording.
	On amendments Nos. 19 and 20, we are waiting for the final details on the arrangements for safeguarding children, and it would be interesting to know when they will be published. In the past few days, the Government have published the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill, and a lot of detail is required on barring, vetting and appeal mechanisms, so we are being asked to accept the amendments on trust.
	Government amendment No. 22 states that someone can be disqualified from registration
	on grounds relating to his health.
	The Minister has provided a couple of examplesof people suffering from alcohol or substance misuse. If people have ongoing medical conditions that mean that they may not be up to the job, they will be disqualified, presumably on a temporary basis, until they arehopefullytreated successfully. What about other conditions? What about people who have HIV? What about people who are suffering from minor mental health conditions? Can the legislation be used to exclude or disqualify people from working in child care if they are suffering from one of those two conditions, which may not be deemed by many people as sufficiently serious or germane to the subject to merit their being disqualified completely from working with children? That is particularly true of people who have minor mental health problems or who have their HIV condition under control and who take all precautions on contamination. I fear that those conditions could be used to discriminate against people who are already stigmatised because they are suffering from a mental illness or have an HIV condition. I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm that the clause could not be used for the purposes for which I am sure she does not intend it to be used.
	Government amendment No. 24 says that disqualification can happen if
	he has been given a caution in respect of an offence of a prescribed kind.
	Government amendment No. 25 refers to section 65 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. That part of the Act, which gives the definitions of cautions and reprimands, can catch a lot of people. The definitions of when it is appropriate to give reprimands or warnings include when
	an offence is not so serious as to require a charge to be brought.
	Will the Minister indicate the sorts of warnings or reprimands that she thinks were not sufficiently serious to merit a full charge under that Act, but are deemed sufficiently serious that those people should not then come into child care contact with children? In effect, it is possible that a teenager who in a moment of high spirits did something that was not serious enough for them to be charged and given a criminal record, but to which they admitted guilt by accepting a reprimand or a warning, could find when they tried to embark on a career in child care or some other form of contact with children, that they are exempted. It seems draconian to exempt a whole group of people who are not on the face of it a danger to children as most of us might term it.
	There is another issue that I hope that the Minister will deal with when we come to discuss the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill, if she is handling it. We need to be able to distinguish between the severity of offences. If a 17-year-old boy or girl has sexual relations with a 15-year-old boy or girl minor, that is against the law. When set against a convicted paedophile who downloads child pornographic images on the internet and engages in molestation of children, I think that most of us would agree that those two offences are on an altogether different scale. There should be some balance in the Bill. Otherwise, people who end up accepting a reprimand or a warning under that wide-ranging section of the Crime and Disorder Act, on the basis that that was the most sensible thing for them to do at the time so that they could move on, may find that it has undermined their entire potential career in the child care work force.
	I heard about an example of that recently. A mother had intervened to stop her son being beaten up by a school colleague who was something of a bully. Without going into the detail of the whole episode, it ended up with her being taken to the police station and being advised to accept a caution for her supposed aggression in separating those children. Given her telling of the story, with other witnesses corroborating it, I have no doubt that what she did was anything more than trying to drag a bully off her son. She thought nothing of it and took the caution. A few years later she applied for a job to work with children in the local youth service. The caution came up and, lo and behold, counted against her so that she could not get the job. That is a high price to pay for somebody who was protecting her son.
	It is right to seek to disqualify people who are a serious threat to children from working with children, because that needs to be tightened up. Conservative Members have been critical of the loopholes and laxness in the system that have allowed serious sex offenders to carry on teaching, in particular, and working in the health service. That is why we will, at the appropriate time, welcome many of the measures in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill. However, we are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I ask the Minister to give us some assurances on the subject.
	Government amendment No. 28 is a technical amendment on which we have no comment. Government amendment No. 29 amends the long title of the Bill. It is usually my job to try to change the long titles of Bills that are to do with children. I applaud the Minister for following my example, as many of them are a disaster.
	I turn to amendment No. 49, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Our amendment gives a slightly different angle on the whole subject of protecting children. It would add the words, child protection arrangements, to clause 12, which deals with the duty to provide information, advice and assistance. It would be appropriate, particularly given the furore in recent months over sex offenders working in environments where they will be involved with children, to do everything that we can to reassure parents that local authorities and child care providers have gone that extra mile to ensure that their children can go to the nursery with every reasonable measure having been taken to ensure that the people with whom they will come into contact have been properly vetted.
	It would enhance the thrust of clause 12 if an additional piece of information were provided to parents and prospective parents to give an indication of what child protection arrangements have been established by the local authority and are demanded of child care providers, and whether they are being put in place, adhered to, maintained and updated where appropriate by those child care providers. That would be a sensible enhancement of the Bill to give parents a degree of assurance that they are giving their children into the charge of people in whom they can have the greatest confidence, so that they can be sure that such people are there in the interests of the children, not because they harbour some other, less desirable intentions towards those children.
	I hope that the amendment is constructive. If the Minister is unable to incorporate it into the Bill now, I hope that it might be considered later, or at least put into regulations for local authorities to follow so that this important issue is taken into account.

Helen Goodman: The Minister will recall that in Committee I was concerned that there appeared to be a loophole on the safeguarding provisions for child care operators in chapter 4that is, those with voluntary registration. I therefore welcome her statement on safeguarding and the read-across to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill. I want to emphasise on the record that that Bill now stipulates the following:
	Under the new scheme, where work, whether paid or unpaid, involves frequent teaching, caring for or otherwise working closely with children, the employer will be required to check that their employees are not barred from working with children, and they will be committing an offence and will face penalties if they employ a person so barred. This will include those working in childcare not registered by Ofsted.
	I am most grateful for that tightening up of the situation.

Annette Brooke: I, too, was generally pleased with the amendments. Again, there were no accompanying notes. I picked up the word health and I was not sure what it covered, but I believe that the same expression is used in the Protection of Children Act 1999POCAlist. There may be additional information that I have not had time to find. It would therefore have been helpful to have the information. I have asked a series of parliamentary questions about checks on child care and I imagine that the written statement, which I have not seen, will add to the information that I have gleaned.
	I, too, am pleased that the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill will apply to child care and that the list or listshowever it ultimately works outwill have to be checked. However, it prompts the question why criminal record checks are not required in unregulated settings, such as in a crche that provides under two hours of child care, which I keep mentioning. I had hoped that amendment No. 49 would pick up that point, but its approach is from a slightly different angle. I am still worried that parents do not know that criminal record checks are not carried out on those in unregulated settings. However, I agree that it is helpful to know that the lists will have to be checked before anybody can work with young people.
	I am pleased with the safeguarding amendmentsNos. 19, 20 and 21. They tie in with other parts of the Bill. However, in Committee, we discussed at great length whether the measure should include the word may or must. The amendments, which refer to
	the arrangements for safeguarding the children concerned
	apply to subsections of clauses that state:
	The regulations may provide
	for the following matters. On safeguarding, the word should be must, as we argued in Committee. The safeguarding amendments make it even more important to revisit the may and must argument, which I will not discuss at great length because we spent much time on it in Committee. However, it is worth raising it again because we have changed the measure and our awareness is heightened about the necessity of safeguarding and protecting. I therefore ask the Under-Secretary to reconsider the matter.

Maria Eagle: I thank hon. Members for being positive about the changes that amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 would make to include safeguarding in the Bill. I am glad that the proposals have been generally welcomed.
	Let me deal with the comments of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on amendment No. 49. Towards the end of his remarks, he suggested that, although we might not be able to incorporate it in the Bill, we might take a great deal of interest in its substance. I am happy to give him that assurance. It is important that parents have full information about child protection and safeguarding. Information services clearly play a key role in ensuring that parents can make informed decisions on the suitability of various child care providers for their children. We will publish regulations and guidance to try to ensure that that is clear to parents.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) stressed the importance of parents understanding the difference between regulated and unregulated settings. I agree. It is our intention that information services can and must tell parents about the registration status of providers and the implications of that, the difference between a registered and a non-registered setting and the checks that registered providers and their staff undergo as opposed to those that staff in unregulated settings mayor may notundergo.
	Information services will need to inform parents about the questions that they should ask when they choose provision. In regulations, we intend to require information services to provide information about keeping children safe in the community. The information might include what parents should do if they have concerns, for example, about child protection or children's welfare. It might also include initiatives or publications from the local safeguarding children boards. Their role in the community is to keep children safe in all sorts of settings in many different places.
	We hope that hon. Members agree that the obligations are comprehensive. The guidance and regulations will include holding such information centrally. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able not to press amendment No. 49, with the understanding that we have fully taken on board the points that Opposition Members made about the importance of information for parents and its centrality to what parents require when they choose provision.
	Let me deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Worthing

Tim Loughton: East Worthing and Shoreham.

Maria Eagle: All the easts, norths and wests can be confusing. [Interruption.] Not to mention highs, souths and so on. I am having one of those days. I shall simply refer to the hon. Gentlemanthat is easier.
	The hon. Gentleman made some points about the ill health provisions, which relate to List 99, to try to tease out precisely what was intended. He gave a couple of examples, including HIV infection and minor mental health problems. The provisions will mirror List 99. There will not be a separate list so that a minor health problem could suddenly be taken into account to ban somebody from a child care setting. Ill health will be taken into account only when it is already sufficient to prompt questions about an individual's suitability for teaching children. The provisions will apply to individuals who could already go on List 99 if they are in an education setting. That does not therefore include HIV infection or minor mental health problems. We are considering examples, such as those that I gave earlier, of serious debility arising from ill health that could make somebody completely unsuitable for looking after children in a child care setting.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful for that elaboration but does the Under-Secretary accept that, because the provisions refer simply to health, an authority, or an individual in it who was so minded, could exclude people in the two categories that I mentioned? That would be neither fair nor appropriate. The provisions give a broad licence to authorities. Will the guidance notes to local authorities state that they were not intended to apply to the examples that I gave?

Maria Eagle: We can make that clear. The provisions apply only to those in an education setting who end up on List 99. They are not intended to be any wider.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a constituency case to show the potential dangers of barring on the basis of cautions. He made legitimate points about the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill, the way in which we intend to make the new barring and vetting process work and the impact that it will have. He gave the example of a mother who intervened to save a child from being pushed around and ended up with soft information on a Criminal Records Bureau record that caused her problems in working in child care. Those issues are central to the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill and establishing the new barring and vetting scheme. We have given the matter considerable thought. We do not intend to provide that any caution would lead to being barred from the children's work force. We would not have such a work force, which could deal with all the jobs and roles in it, if we cast the net too wide. Obviously, it is important to cast it in the appropriate place, however, and that is certainly our intention. It would be our intention to bar on the basis of cautions only for serious sexual or violent offences. We would not want to see people being barred from the child care work force if they had, perhaps sensibly, received a caution for a very minor matter that would not make them a risk to children.
	The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is right to draw the comparison, which is sometimes age-related, between circumstances that might relate to a similar offence. He used the example of a 17-year-old and a 15-year-old having a relationship, and compared it to the case of a paedophile downloading child porn then wanting to work in the child care work force. Common sense would suggest to most hon. Members that there is a huge difference between those examples.
	When the hon. Gentleman sees the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill in all its glory, he will understand that we are dealing with precisely where the lines should be drawn in what are sometimes grey areas. However, I do not think, from what he says, that he disagrees too strongly with where we have tried to draw the line. The provisions that we are putting into this Bill try to make consistent the place at which the bar will fall between the education work force and the child care work force. We are trying to tidy up and make consistent the places where the line is drawn in that regard.
	I regret that we cannot give the hon. Gentleman the full details of all the relevant measures, but some of them are in another piece of legislation, which we shall consider in the not-too-distant future. I can assure him, however, that we have in mind the issues that he has raised in regard to proportionality. There will also be provision for appeals and for people to make representations in appropriate cases. It is perhaps regrettable that those measures are in a Bill that has yet to come before the House. I am asking hon. Members to take on trust some of those issues in relation to the Childcare Bill. I can assure them, however, that its provisions will be consistent with those of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill in regard to the new barring and vetting scheme, which the House will have plenty of opportunity to consider in great detail in the not-too-distant future.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6
	  
	Best Value: Code of Practice

'The Secretary of State shall publish by 1 January 2007 a code of practice ensuring that local authorities operating a best value regime, in accordance with Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1999 (c. 27), act in a fair and transparent way in delivering best value obligations with regard to childcare provision.'.[Mr. Paul Goodman.]
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Paul Goodman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 8Best Value Provision Of Childcare
	'Any local authority operating a best value regime, in accordance with Part 1 of the Local Government Act 1999 (c. 27), must act in a fair and transparent way in delivering best value obligations with regard to childcare provision, having due regard to any relevant statutory code of practice.'.
	Amendment No. 60, in page 4, line 10, clause 6, after 'sufficient', insert
	', and is likely to remain sufficient,'.
	Amendment No. 5, in page 4, line 15, at end insert
	', or
	(c)   to receive appropriate assistance with children with disabilities or other special needs.'.
	Amendment No. 13, in page 4, line 15, at end insert
	'or
	(c)   to sustain caring responsibilities.'.
	Amendment No. 35, in page 4, line 15, at end insert
	'(1A)   In assessing the requirements referred to in subsection (1) a local authority should have regard to any disabilities of the parents themselves, as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50).'.
	Amendment No. 10, in page 4, line 24, at end insert
	', and
	(c)   must consider the quality of local childcare provision with reference to the Ofsted inspection process.'.
	Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 24, clause 8, at end insert
	'(3A)   A local authority must establish a complaints procedure for existing or potential childcare providers who have been disadvantaged by local authorities who choose to provide childcare and related services themselves.'.
	Amendment No. 31, in page 5, line 26, at end insert
	'(4A)   Where childcare is provided by the governing body of a maintained school it must be both fully co-ordinated with other local provision and with the local Children and Young People's Plan, published under section 17 of the Children Act 2004 (c. 31).'.
	Amendment No. 32, in page 5, line 34, clause 9, leave out 'other than' and insert 'including'.
	Amendment No. 38, in page 6, line 13, clause 11, at end insert
	'(1A)   Assessments of sufficiency under subsection (1) must have regard to any Local Area Agreement relating to the local authority.'.
	Amendment No. 59, in page 6, line 28, leave out paragraph (a) and insert
	'(a)   consult
	(i)   parents and prospective parents in their area,
	(ii)   early years providers in their area, including those in private and voluntary sectors,
	(iii)   other persons engaged in activities which may improve the well-being of young children in their area, and
	(iv)   young children in their area.'.
	Amendment No. 39, in page 12, line 33, clause 26, at end insert
	', having regard to the Local Area Agreement process'.

Paul Goodman: As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has pointed out, three months have passed since Second Reading, which was the last opportunity that I had to speak on the Bill, as I did not serve on the Committee. However, today, along with my hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller), I have been placed on the Front Bench to speak on child care issues. It is a pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), whom I last saw when we discussed the Disability Discrimination Bill, although at that time, I did not have the chance to have the kind of detailed exchanges with her in Committee and on Report that we might be about to have now.
	The new clauses and amendments are about sufficiency, but they are also, no less importantly, about sustainability, contestability and fairness in child care provision. These matters were explored to some degree in the Committee proceedings that I have read, but there is yet more action to be taken on them. The Government are formally signed up to work in partnership with PVIprivate, voluntary and independentproviders, and they are very proud of that. When the Minister for Children and Families replied to the Second Reading debate, she gave the House statistics on the child care provision that is made by the private and voluntary sector. She will be aware, however, as the issue was raised in Committee, that some PVI providers and others are concerned that the playing field is not as level as it might be, and that the mixed economy in child care is, to some extent, under threat.
	In some ways, local authorities have an advantage over PVI providers. My hon. Friends gave some examples of that in Committeeincluding that in regard to capital spendingand I shall not repeat them here. However, when these matters were raised in Committee, the Minister for Children and Families responded to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) about a National Day Nurseries Association survey by saying
	for his information, the closure rate of all child care businesses, as recorded by Ofsted, has fallen recently . . . Ofsted's statistics suggest that, since the publication of the 10-year strategy, closure rates for these small businesses have fallen dramatically.[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 8 December 2005; c. 12021]
	Before I turn to the new clauses and amendments dealing with contestability and fairness, I must tell the Minister that the figures that she gave us do not square with information in written answers that my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke and I have recently received. According to calculations made by my hon. Friend, some 200,000 places closed in 200405, up from 59,500 the previous year. That seems to be an extraordinary increase. I tabled a written question on this matter recently and, according to the answer that I received this week, the latest figures reveal that, in the six months to last September, roughly 114,000 places opened, but some 73,000 closed. In other words, the closure rate appears to be increasing. We used to say that, for every two places that opened, one would close. According to the latest figureswhich might not be sustained; we shall have to seeit now appears that, for every five places that open, roughly three are closing.
	In short, there is a suspicion that the overall growth in the child care marketwhich we have certainly seen; there is no doubt about thatcould be unsustainable, and that we might be entering a dangerous process of growth and contraction. First comes the growth in the number of places; second comes the closure among the PVI providers as local authority-favoured providers exploit the unevenness of the playing field to expand places; finally, there could be a contraction in local authority places as the flow of Government money into child care places continues to increase but slows down.
	If that were to happen, such an outcome would obviously be immensely destabilising for parents, who want certainty, and for children, who need stability. The new clauses and amendments aim to provide more stability and certainty by increasing contestability. They would put into effect some of the recommendations from the excellent CBI report entitled Children First, which I am sure the Ministers have read.
	New clause 6 proposes that an obligation be placed on the Secretary of State, and written into the Bill, to publish a code of practice by the beginning of next year that would ensure that local authorities operating a best practice regimein practice, that is nearly all of themact in a fair and transparent way with regard to child care. New clause 8 underpins new clause 6 by directly placing a duty on local authorities to act in such a fair and transparent manner.
	Amendment No. 60 would help to write sustainability into the Bill. As drafted, the Bill places a duty on English local authoritiesthe Liberal Democrats need not worry; I am going to deal with Wales in a minuteto
	secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the provision of childcare (whether or not by them) is sufficient to meet the requirements of parents in their area.
	I understand that there was some dispute in Committee about the words
	so far as is reasonably practicable.
	Inserting the words
	and is likely to remain sufficient
	would place a duty on local authorities to ensure that that sufficiency is sustainable. It is evident from the calculations of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke, and from the written answers that we have both received, that there is at the very least a question mark over that sustainability.
	Clause 6(1) already obliges local authorities to ensure that
	the provision of childcare . . . is sufficient to meet the requirements of parents . . . who require childcare
	so that they can take up work, education or training, which is admirable. Amendment No. 5 adds a new category of parents who require child care to help them
	to receive appropriate assistance with children with disabilities or other special needs.
	I am sure that we have all encountered that group of parents and children in our constituencies. I recently visited a club in my constituency that provides care for children with disabilities and special needs on Saturdays, in order to give parents respite that is desperately needed. The Minister nods: she knows a great deal about these matters from her previous experience as Minister for disabled people.
	Amendment No. 35 obliges local authorities to
	have regard to any disabilities of the parents themselves.
	Access to child care may be crucially affected if parents have difficulty gaining access to transport. Amendment No. 7 protects the position of
	existing or potential childcare providers who have been disadvantaged by local authorities who . . . provide childcare and related services themselves
	by placing on them an obligation to establish a complaints procedure. Amendment No. 38 proposes use of the local area agreement process, whereby central Government pay bonuses to local authorities that enter into agreed action, to include the creation of a diverse range of providers of children's services or a sustainable local market for child care in England. Amendment No. 39 makes the same provision for Wales.
	I have a feeling, based on my experience of previous Bills, that for one reason or another the Government may not accept all the amendments. The Minister may tell us the reason. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham accuses me of pessimism, but it is simply the triumph of experience over hope.
	If the Minister has difficulties with our amendments, we shall be keen to hear how the Government will deal with the issues of contestability and transparency. It is clear from the latest child care statistics, which show an increase in the rate of closures, that something very curious is happening in the child care market. Either it is simply a problem of oversupply, oras the CBI has complained, along with others who aired their complaints in CommitteeGovernment provision is driving some PVI providers out of the market. The question is, as the flow of money slows, what will happen to places that have disappeared and may not be able to return to the market? I look forward to the Minister's reply.

Annette Brooke: I have no great disagreement with the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman). I certainly share his concerns about sustainability. We should, however, also be mindful of the problem of affordability. I am sure that there is a desire for child care, but it may not translate itself into demand for reasons connected with funding. That is an enormous problem for the Government. Large sums are needed to make child care affordable, and I cannot offer an easy solution.
	I want to concentrate on amendments Nos. 5, 13 and 35, all of which deal with the same issue. The Bill does not cover the provision of child care when parents are workless. In Committee, we pointed out that parents might be workless because they were caring, or because they had disabilities themselves. In such circumstances, access to child care might be even more important. I tabled an amendment suggesting that a local authority may rather than must have regard to providing child care for workless parents. We could be storing up greater costs in the long run by not providing child care, because of the prioritisation of a hard-pressed local authority, when it is deeply needed by both parents and children.
	I remember saying that two deaf parents might have hearing children. The children would really need child care, and the ability to socialise more generally. I am still concerned that the Bill does not even use the word may to indicate that in some circumstances local authorities throughout the countrynot just the best-funded authoritiesmay need to provide child care.
	It could be said that amendment No. 10 is slightly in disguise. Let me explain. I spent a good deal of time in Committee, and indeed on Second Reading, speaking about quality, because I think that it is crucial. However, humbled and crushed into the ground by all the Ministers' answers, I tabled this minimalist amendment. I listened carefully to Ministers who kept telling me that I need not worry about local authorities' monitoring quality, because there were Ofsted inspections. I therefore suggested the additional instruction that local authorities
	must consider the quality of local child care provision with reference to the Ofsted inspection process.
	I merely suggest that local authorities should look at Ofsted reports across the board. I hope the Minister will accept that modest, basic requirement in the spirit in which it is proposed by me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). We recognised that we must define what we meant by quality; defining a baseline in Ofsted terms could do the job.
	In February the Government issued A Code of Practice on the Provision of Free Nursery Education Places for Three-and Four-Year-Olds. Its emphasis on quality is welcome. It states:
	Local authorities may also require other providers of nursery education to participate in a quality assurance scheme.
	In Committee, I pressed the Minister for answers on the Investors in Children kitemark scheme. Although the answers that I received were reassuring, at a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group for children it was clear that early-years providers were again concerned about the future of Investors in Children. It would be helpful if the Minister could update us on the progress of consultation, and tell us whether there is a commitment to maintaining a generally recognised kitemark, or something similar, for quality assurance.
	I stress that such monitoring by Ofsted would be minimalist. The problem would be that monitoring might happen only once every three years. However, Ofsted reports can bring strands together. For example, one report observed that there was a high proportion of child care settings in which not all staff were in place at the time of their opening. There is a need for local authorities to keep an eye on such nurseries.
	Amendment No. 31, which we tabled, picks up on the idea that we must have a level playing field. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) said that there is a worry that it does not exist. The amendment is fairly modest. I favour neither state nor private provision. I have no agenda on that because I come from an authority that relies on the private and voluntary sector for the bulk of its provision, which is good. However, there are reports from all over the country that some of our important private providers are not satisfied that there is a level playing field, so it is critical that that problem is taken on board.
	I tabled amendment No. 59 so that we could return to a matter on which we touched in Committee: consultation with all partners and participants, including young children. I have tabled the amendment to a different clause than I did in Committee because the Minister explained to me that it would not be appropriate for young children to participate in making overall strategy. Amendment No. 59 is a probing amendment that tries to encapsulate the importance of listening to all children. Would it not be groundbreaking to include in the Bill a reference to listening to young children? The Government have funded exciting work on listening to young children, so why not have some recognition of that in the Bill? I think that the amendment could be incorporated in clause 11, but I wait to hear otherwise.

Justine Greening: I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman). As hon. Members have already said, the market is mixed. That is one of the values of the market because it ensures that the provision of child care is diverse. An especially diverse group of people lives in my constituency, so the more diverse our provision, the better the choice for my local parents. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that the Bill facilitates and helps to develop that mixed market, rather than stifles it. It is thus especially important that we have a level playing field for both private child care providersthere are many excellent ones in my constituencyand provision provided by a local authority.
	We have heard that for every five child care places that come into being, three are lost, which suggests that there is a huge amount of churn in the market. The Bill places a duty on authorities to assess the local provision of child care, but the churn will make that difficult. It is in everyone's interests to ensure that decisions taken by not only local authorities, but private child care providers, are informed, fair and sustainable so that local authorities do not constantly have to try to assess a situation that is evolving so rapidly that they cannot tell whether the local need for child care provision is being acceptably met.
	When we discuss the mixed market, we often forget about the individuals whom we need the market to serve: children. Nurseries may shut down in response to a changing market. However, if the closure is unsustainable, children often find changing their nursery difficult to take. Parents can find it stressful if they suddenly have to find a new child care provider because their existing one was forced out of the market. The more that we can avoid that situation happening unnecessarily, the better.
	I especially support amendments Nos. 5 and 35, which would ensure that local authorities would assess parents with disabilities themselves. As my constituency is a London seat, we have perhaps more than our fair share of Victorian buildings, which are not the most accessible in the world. We also have problems with public transport because although the buses are accessible, our local underground is not. It is important that the Bill urges local authorities to consider the accessibility needs and disabilities of parents when determining child care provision so that some people are not disfranchised from a measure that is meant to help absolutely everyone.

Beverley Hughes: I welcome the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) on his debut to the Front Bench. As he implied, I am well aware of his responsibilities because of the dozens of parliamentary questions that he has assiduously put my way, the answers to which he used to good effect today. It is good to see him on the Front Bench. We are considering a large group of new clauses and amendments, which cover a range of slightly different issues relating to the general matter of sufficiency, so I will try to deal with them in a way that makes coherent sense.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about the role of local authorities at the start of his speech. We have stressed the importance of that role throughout the Bill's passage. A local authority is the strategic holder of the ring when making sure that there is a sufficiency of child care places for parents in their area. I appreciate that he wants to utilise all the levers that are already in the system to ensure that there is good local authority practice, sustainability and the level playing field about which he spoke. Several of the amendments represent proposals on best value and local area agreements. Although I appreciate the intention behind them, there is perhaps a misunderstanding about the way in which best value and local area agreements work at present.
	There is no need for a separate statutory code such as that in new clause 6 because all the functions carried out by a local authority are automatically covered by the best value regime and the guidance that has already been produced. The new clause would lead to a piecemeal change whereby a different duty of best value operated solely in relation to child care provision. Such a change would be not only confusing for local authorities, but unnecessary.
	I can make a similar point about new clause 8 because fairness is an intrinsic part of the best value regime that has already been legislated for. Local authorities must have regard to the combination of economy, effectiveness and efficiency. In doing so, they must also have regard to a range of considerations that include fairness and transparency. New clauses 8 and 6 together imply that special arrangements would be needed for the child care duty, and that is not the case.
	Amendment No. 60 relates to future sustainability. Again, I understand what hon. Members desire, and I support that, but the Bill already imposes a duty on local authorities to secure a sufficiency of child care. The word secure implies a duty for continuing effect. As long as the duty remains in place and is phrased in that way, the requirement is for the local authority to ensure sustainability in the future. Local authorities have to consider and plan for future changes that may have an implication on the requirements.

Maria Miller: Will the Minister pick up on the issue that most concerns us? We have teased out in parliamentary questions the sheer volume of places lost in the nursery sector. The figures that she kindly supplied to me only this week show that more than 200,000 places are being lost. We are most concerned about that trend and I would value her specific comments on it.

Beverley Hughes: I do not think that there is a conflict in the way in which Conservative Members have selected part of the data that is available to us and to Ofsted on the total picture in relation to closure and opening rates of child care places. When referring to lower closure rates, until recently I have referred to total closures as a share of the total stock in places, including full day care, child minders and out-of-school clubs. The Ofsted data show that that rate has fallen quarter by quarter right across the board since the launch of the child care strategy.
	I take it that Opposition Members are referring only to private sector places

Maria Miller: They cover the majority of such provision.

Beverley Hughes: Certainly, but there was an implication that the Ofsted data that I quoted were incorrect. The data go right across the board and show that there is much more stability in the sector as whole, although there are changes in the private sector market, as there are in any private sector market.

Paul Goodman: For the sake of clarity, the Minister is saying that her contention in Committeethat
	closure rates for these small businesses . . . have fallen dramatically.[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 8 December 2005; c. 121.]
	is consistent with the figures that she has given, whereby approximately 128,000 places closed between 2003 and 2004 and approximately 187,000 places closed from April 2004 to March 2005. That is an increase. I do not understand how it is consistent with a 10 per cent. fall.

Beverley Hughes: I do not have those figures, but I agree that there is churn in the private sector part of the child care market. It is not significantly greater than the general figures that I have seen on churn in other parts of the private sector market not related to child care. Private businesses stop trading and operating. The level of that in the child care market is not significantly greater than it is in other private businesses. If we look across the sector as a whole, in terms of the number of places that are being opened and the number that are closing, across the piece Ofsted data show that the rate of closure has fallen quarter by quarter since the child care strategy started and that, on balance, the net rate of places is increasing, because the rate of increase is greater than the rate of closure.

Maria Miller: It is worth teasing out the information a little further. The figures are clear. We have seen a seismic difference in closure of nursery places over the past two years. The year before last, 59,000 places closed; last year, 200,000 places closed. The feeling we get is that that is reducing the take-up of nursery places. At the moment, the figures show that nurseries are running at 79 per cent. capacity, which is well below the level that is financially viable. That came out in the Public Accounts Committee debate on the subject two years ago.
	I want the Minister to focus on that. The difference between 59,000 and 200,000 closures is enormous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) said, it results in uncertainty for children and working parents, which we are not happy about.

Beverley Hughes: I think the hon. Lady will agree that she is using figures up to the end of December 2004. It is the case that, as the strategy was developing, there was turbulence in the system as private providers came into being. Perhaps they did not have the sustainability and went out of business, and some child care places were lost in that sector. I have not got the relevant figures with me, but I shall ensure that the hon. Lady gets them if she does not have them; however, I suspect that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) has them. On reading those figures, she will see that since December 2004 there has been much greater stability, even in that part of the child care market catered for by private-sector providers. So there has been much greater stability not only across the board, but in that particular part of the market, in the past 15 to 18 months. The market is settling down and we are not seeing the degree of churn that existed 18 months to two years ago, to which the hon. Lady referred. That said, I am concerned about this issue. Like the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Wycombe, we want a diverse and varied market that includes the private sector. As with the voluntary sector, where the private sector achieves good quality provision, we want local authorities to work with it to develop and grow such provision.
	I turn to amendments Nos. 38 and 39 and local area agreements. I appreciate the attempt to use existing levers to ensure that local authorities are working in real partnership, but there are several difficulties with citing local area agreements. First, they apply to England only; secondly, they are voluntary agreements and have no statutory basis, so we could not include them Bill. As I have hinted, because the local area agreement process does not exist in Wales, amendment No. 39 is not appropriate.
	A number of amendmentsNos. 5, 35, 13 and 59deal with the ways in which local authorities relate to various groups of people who might want to use child care in their areas. On amendments Nos. 5 and 13, the child care needs of many of the carers cited is already covered by the duty on local authorities. They will be inor be seeking to be inemployment, education or training, so they will be part of the population to whom the duty on local authorities will apply. There are also other initiatives to support carers of children or adultsregardless of whether they are in employment, education or trainingthrough the social care and social security system: the carer's allowance, the carer's grant and council tax discounts.
	I do acknowledge that parents and carers of disabled children need breaks, and such children also benefit from new experiences and opportunities to interact with other children, away from their families. However, the point is that we do not need new legislation to achieve that. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989, and standard 8, on disabled children, of the national service framework for children, young people and maternity services, already make such provision. We must look to such measures, rather than expanding the duty on local authorities to ensure such provision for disabled families.

Annette Brooke: I want to repeat my concern that in the light of scarce funds, local authorities will prioritise. Although I appreciate that in some local authorities there may be considerable funding from social services for places, in others there is not, and no increased funding will be coming on board. Unless the Bill deals with this issue to some extent, the focus will be on working parents and some workless parents could be completely left out, simply because all local authorities have to prioritise. The child poverty target has not been met because just one method is being used to get people back into work; other methods need also to be used. If we focus on a single group, others might be totally overlooked. I am genuinely concerned about this issue.

Beverley Hughes: I appreciate the hon. Lady's concern and I know that it is genuine; she raises these issues because of her regard for such people. We are trying to frame a duty on local authorities to provide sufficient child care, and it is important that in doing so, we strike a balance. It is not that the groups whom the hon. Lady mentions are not important; they are, but we are talking about requiring, in law, local authorities to ensure that sufficient child care is available for certain groups. They will be judged accountable according to where we draw the line for that duty, and the Bill proposes that it should be drawn for working parents and the parents of disabled children.
	In fulfilling that duty, local authorities will generally make good-quality child care more available across the board, and I have no doubt that it will be available for people outside the groups to which I have referred. We have to decide what we should require local authorities to guarantee, as far as they reasonably can, and the criteria against which we should judge them. The Bill strikes a reasonable balance in that respect, ensuring that there is more child care for other groups, but not imposing a very high threshold of duty on local authorities.
	Amendment No. 35 would place an explicit duty on local authorities to have regard also for the requirements of disabled parents when securing sufficient child care. I agree that the needs of disabled parents must be taken into account and accommodated, although not necessarily by this Bill. A new disability equality duty will come into effect in December this year, requiring all public bodies to ensure that disabled people are treated equally. Obviously, that duty will play a part in what local authorities must provide in connection with this Bill, and that is why the amendment is not necessary.
	Amendment No. 59 would include on the face of the Bill the groups that local authorities should consult when carrying out their assessment duty. During the Committee stage, we published a paper outlining our intentions in that regard, and that is still available in the Library of the House. It states clearly that local authorities should consult with parents, carers, providers, employers and local organisations to ensure that the provision meets their needs. As I said in Committee, we will require local authorities by means of regulation to take account of the views of children. I hope that the hon. Lady will be happy with that, as it will give us a quality system for assessing sufficiency.
	Other amendments deal with the relationship between the private voluntary sector and schools, the two parts of the sector that will provide child care. As part of the level playing field argument, amendment No. 7 would require local authorities to set up an appeals process to handle the concerns of child care providers. We discussed the matter very thoroughly in Committee, and the arrangements in the Bill will safeguard the very valuable role that the private and voluntary sectors play in maintaining the diverse market that we want to exist.However, as I said in Committee, if local providers still feel that they have been treated unfairly, processes are in place to ensure that they can complain to the local authority.
	Secondly, we have said that any complaints received by the local authority must be referred to Ofsted for consideration as part of the joint area review. Thirdly, guidance will make it clear that the authority must inform Ofsted about issues raised in complaints in respect of its analysis of sufficiency and other matters.
	Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 deal with the role of maintained schools, and once again are similar to amendments tabled in Committee. I still believe that amendment No. 31 is not necessary, as clause 35 of the Education and Inspections Bill will introduce a new duty for maintained schools to have regard to the children and young persons plan. That will take care of the objective contained in amendment No. 31.
	Amendment No. 32 is similarly unnecessary. Maintained providers are already subject to quite stringent requirements in respect of the quality of the services that they provide and of the management of their delegated budgets. Local authorities already have to have in place detailed and well established monitoring and accountability arrangements for budgets in schools and other maintained settings. It follows that financial assistance for child care in schools will be closely monitored in that way. Therefore, the amendments are not necessary.
	The hon. Lady rightly pursues the issue of the quality of child care. I hope that she did not feel crushed in Committee, because that was not my intention. I would never seek to do that, especially to the hon. Lady because I know that her sentiments are generally benign, if sometimes a little misguided in terms of how we get where we want to be. I tried to stress in Committee that a substantial part of the Billpart 3is about quality, because we are instituting a new regulation and inspection regime, and a new framework for the early years foundation stage as a basis for that regime. That Ofsted framework is the appropriate way to achieve a national consistent standard of achievement. In addition, clause 6 requires local authorities to have particular regard to the need to secure sufficient child care that is eligible for the child care element of the working tax credit. Child care will be eligible for tax credits only if it satisfies the standards set by Ofsted. It does not make sense to require local authorities to duplicate 150 times what we have already established, which is a national organisation that parents trust and that works to consistent standards across the country. That is the way to proceed.
	Clause 11 requires local authorities to carry out an assessment of parents' needs for child care. That will not be just an assessment of parents' needs regarding the quantity of child care but of the quality and flexibility of that child care. Our regulations and guidance underpinning that duty will make it clear that local authorities must consider the types and features of child care that parents require.
	We have to allow local authorities to exercise leadership in the way that they think best for their area. They are doing so in significant numbers, but that is different from placing them under a requirement that would potentially conflict with or duplicate Ofsted's role. I am the first to agree with the hon. Lady that the quality of child care is crucial, but I do not agree that the amendment is the way to achieve it.
	I am afraid that I cannot give hon. Members much comfort in terms of accepting their amendments, but I hope that the reassurances that I have tried to give show that what they seek to achieve is either encompassed in the Bill or in other legislation or regulations. I ask the Opposition to withdraw the new clause and not to press the amendments.

Paul Goodman: The Minister said a moment ago that she had not given us much comfort. I agree, and I shall explain why by returning to the figures. The key word that she used was churn and she said that there is a churning of places. She also said that matters had improved since December 2004. From 200304 to 200405, according to the parliamentary answer that the Minister kindly provided, 16,000 new places were provided, but some 60,000 were closed. We find it hard to see how that can be a churn. Either there is over-supply or there is not a level playing field in the way that the CBI and the National Daycare Nurseries Association have suggested. It must be one or the other.
	In her reply, the Minister essentially said that these amendments are a duplication. That was a lawyer's answer. Saying something is a lawyer's answer is not necessarily an uncomplimentary remark; after all, my party was led by a lawyer until recently, and the right hon. Lady's party still is. I was not for a moment claiming that the right hon. Lady is a lawyer, simply that her answer was a good lawyer's answer, and I am sure that she was assisted by her Department in that. However, it seems to us that although the Bill may contain the measures necessary to ensure that a level playing field is established, it is hard to see them. We do not intend to press these amendments to the vote, but our colleagues in another place will require more reassurance about how the Minister's Department is going to provide a level playing field once the Bill comes into effect. At the moment, there is a very strong suggestion that the playing field is not level.
	I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
	Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1
	  
	General Duties of Local Authority in Relation to Well-being of Young Children

Maria Miller: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 7, leave out 'reduce inequalities between' and insert
	'show how it is raising the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 34, in page 1, line 8, at end insert
	'(c)   show how it is raising the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged young children.'.
	No. 40, in page 1, line 11, after 'health', insert 'development'.
	No. 52, in page 2, line 1, at end insert
	'(f)   their relationship with their parents or carers.'.
	No. 41, in page 2, line 2, leave out 'set targets for' and insert 'establish procedures for assessing'.
	No. 2, in page 2, line 5, leave out 'reduction of inequalities between' and insert
	'improvement in the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged'.
	No. 36, in page 2, line 7, at end insert
	'(3A)   Procedures for assessing the improvements set out in subsection (3) should be based on quality of outcomes, in accordance with the regulations referred to in that subsection.'.
	No. 42, in page 2, line 9, leave out 'targets' and insert 'procedures'.
	No. 61, in page 2, line 10, leave out 'met' and insert 'adhered to'.
	No. 43, in page 2, line 41, clause 3, after 'facilitate', insert 'and maximise'.
	No. 56, in page 3, line 1, leave out 'identify' and insert 'target'.
	No. 55, in page 3, line 32, clause 4, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
	No. 47, in page 4, line 1, leave out clause 5.
	No. 11, in page 6, line 37, clause 12, after 'assistance', insert 'for families'.
	No. 48, in page 6, line 40, after 'provision', insert ', funding and sustainability'.

Maria Miller: I was due to serve on the Committee on this Bill, but because of a double booking with Standing Committee on the Equality Bill, I was unable to do so. Equality won out, which is as it should be. I eventually got here, and the hand of fate means that I am involved at the end of the day. I reiterate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) earlier about the cross-departmental child care team on the Opposition Benches. My hon. Friends the Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) are part of the official Opposition's strong child care team, and I am pleased to be part of it too.
	In Committee there was vigorous debate, particularly on issues that I shall cover in this group of amendments. It is a diverse groupsomething of a shopping listbut these are important amendments and are worthy of further consideration. This group focuses on the duties of local authorities to ensure the well-being of children and I shall subdivide it further so that the debate makes sense.
	I shall first look at amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which relate to clause 1, about improving the well-being of children. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State stressed the idea of children having the best start in life, and the Opposition wholeheartedly endorse that. We believe that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 would instil that ideal more into the Bill. Our concern is that the reduction of inequalitiesthe wording currently in the Billcould be interpreted in a number of ways and lacks the clarity that legislation should provide. Clarity of direction is vital. We believe that the Bill needs to focus on raising standardsan objective that we all share. We have heard today that the Government have failed to meet their target for reducing child poverty, and we share their obvious concern about that. Many hundreds of thousands of children who should have been out of poverty remain in it.
	We have to focus on what we can do to close the gap between rich and poor, because it must be addressed in terms not merely of targets, which can sometimes create perverse outcomes, but of raising standards for all, especially the quality of experience for the most disadvantaged groups. We believe that the Bill should, and will, set the tone and ethos for what we want from child care. The Bill is important because every child deserves the opportunity to maximise his or her potential.
	In Committee, some philosophical differences were expressed about the reduction of inequalities versus improvement in the quality of outcomes. I hope that we can agree that we should continue to work on those points, but we may be closer together than the Committee debate suggested. I refer to an interview given by the Prime Minister on Newsnight in 2001, when he clearly stated that the Government's objective was to level things up. He said:
	Surely the important thing is to level up those people that don't have opportunity in our society.
	We wholeheartedly endorse that view, which our amendments would make much clearer in the Bill. Our philosophy is simple: to maximise the potential of children so that no child is held back or left behind. The amendments would help to make that clearer to the people who implement the legislation.
	It will be useful to deal with amendments Nos. 34, 43 and 56 together. They all refer to improving children's well-being, which relates to the Government's objective of ensuring that we help the people who need it most, which the Secretary of State stressed on Second Reading. The objective of the amendments is to focus the Bill on doing exactly that. As child poverty remains of great concern, I hope that the Government find the amendments useful in ensuring that our objectives in the legislation are clear.
	I am sure that the House agrees that we have much to learn from other experience of child care provision. The US head start programme is interesting. It puts tremendous focus on the most disadvantaged families and has resulted in significant, measurable improvements in language, social development and parental interaction with their children, in terms of reading and discipline. In the UK, Sure Start is a welcome help for the most disadvantaged, although it covers only 40 per cent. of disadvantaged children. Indeed, my constituency, which has areas of significant disadvantage, receives no such help, although I am pleased that the situation will change in the future with the establishment of children's centres.
	As the Minister of State has stressed, when I have put questions about the results of Sure Start, these are early days, but is the programme targeted enough on the most disadvantaged? In the light of the national evaluation of Sure Start, will the Minister consider whether more can be done directly to underpin and support the most disadvantaged groups, especially those important groups that the research showed were as yet unsupported by the programmelone parents, teenage mothers and workless households. We all feel that they deserve more support.
	We all want to improve the well-being of children in the broadest sense, but it is vital that support for the most disadvantaged is at the heart of our discussions. All three amendments would focus resources more actively on those most in need, which we hope will do most to help children in poverty. The proposals would not merely facilitate but maximise access to the services on offer and not merely identify but target the parents most in need, making the Bill much more active and its support more directed.
	We are concerned about the structure of the Sure Start programme, which needs some attention. It is rather loose and variable in execution, so it can be difficult to measure outcomes. Our key concern is that we are ensuring help for those who need it, and perhaps that is not ingrained in the implementation of Sure Start to date, as evidenced by the Birkbeck study, which was published in November 2005. I am, of course, aware of the supplementary pamphlets and notes that have been issued as a result of that research. I ask the Minister to comment on whether she feels that that background is sufficient to cause the change that we probably need to see in Sure Start to underpin those important groups.
	The Government clearly have continuing problems with poverty levels. We have been targeting to reduce poverty, but hundreds of thousands of children whom the Government were hoping to lift out of poverty have not been removed from it. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has estimated that an additional 1.4 billion will be needed to hit the Government's targets by 2010. Obviously that is down to the Chancellor, who must ponder and think about it. We accept on both sides of the House that work is an important way out of poverty. Indeed, that was reiterated this morning by a Minister speaking on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions during an interview. The Bill is an important way to support parents with the aim of getting back to work in mind. If we are to ensure that the proposed legislation reaches its maximum potential, there may be room to consider the amendments to ensure that we are focusing our activities in the right direction.
	Amendments Nos. 40 and 52 were tabled to offer some support and help in improving the well-being checklist. What is on the checklist will dictate the approach that the local authority takes. As we all know, what happens to us as children influences us for the rest of our lives. The way in which we assess the progress of children is of paramount importance.
	Amendment No. 40 is about the physical and emotional health of children. I am sure that we all realise that mental health is a long-term issue that develops over time. It is not static, and cannot be considered at only one point in time. We need to consider the mental health development of children, and that is a continuing process.
	As for amendment No. 52, there is the recognition that children's relationships with their parents are important in their long-term well-being. I was somewhat surprised to see that that was not recognised in the Bill, particularly after some of the debates that we have had recently on the Children and Adoption Bill, during which we all agreed on the importance of the relationship with parents. This should be a pivotal element of the well-being checklist, and I ask the Minister to consider that carefully. The amendment would lead to a constructive improvement.
	With amendment No. 36, we try to draw attention to the importance of the quality of outcomes. As part of improving the well-being of children, we are improving access. We are also improving the quality of child care on offer. We have already discussed our disappointment that so many private and voluntary nursery places have come to an end, although there has been a net gain. We see that as a positive move, but we are concerned that 200,000 places have been closed.
	We need to ensure that when, or rather if, the Bill is enacted, local authorities focus on quality, not quantity alone. We feel strongly about that, and the issue was debated thoroughly in Committee. It is worthy of being set out in the Bill, and the amendment would do that. It would put into the Bill the importance of quality and the importance of raising the quality of outcomes, which should be at the heart of the legislation.
	Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 46 have been tabled to encourage better acknowledgement of the importance of giving local authorities some room to manoeuvre in their local approach to putting child care in place in their areas. We all know that our constituencies are diverseBasingstoke is a mixture of suburban and rural communitiesand even within a single constituency and local authority area the Bill will have to deal with a great deal of diversity. The amendments would give the local authorities the ability to adapt to local needs, and more autonomy, making sure that they were not just driven by centrally dictated targets but could take into account what was happening in their own communities.
	Amendment No. 55 has a specific aim, and echoes the debate about may and must in Committee. Clause 4 deals with the duty of local authorities to work with relevant partners such as the national health service in the delivery of integrated child care. Members on both sides of the House will agree that collaborative working is vital if the Bill is to succeed. The Bill makes it clear that local authorities must work with their relevant partner agencies, and clause 4(4) says that they
	may . . . provide staff, goods, services, accommodation . . . and maintain a pooled fund.
	That wording suggests that there is a choice. The Government may have overlooked that usage, but we need to be certain that that is the case.
	We know from debates on the health service that there is enormous pressure on finances in this area, and that one in four primary care trusts are in financial deficit. When we talk to Ministers about the provision of services in other areas we are told that that is the responsibility of local management. I have asked Health Ministers on a number of occasions about the provision of local health services in north Hampshire, but they tell me that that is dictated by local management. We need to take that into consideration when we assess this part of the Bill. Can the Minister explain where the well-being of children will fall in local NHS priorities? The amendments recognise the need for a statutory directive in the Bill to ensure that it can achieve what it sets out to achieve.
	Finally, after that rather long shopping list of amendments, amendment No. 47 would remove clause 5. Under that clause, the Minister could redefine the nature of early childhood services, thus giving her unlimited powers to change the group of people whom the Bill is intended to help. How would those services be redefined? Will she explain why that provision was included by telling us when and why it would be used? I commend the amendments to the House, and I look forward to the Minister's response.

Michael Wills: Briefly, in the light of the comments by the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) about local autonomy, I would welcome reassurance from my right hon. Friend the Minister that levers will be in place in future so that her Department can ensure that the money given to local authorities will not be diverted from the poorest children in the poorest areas of each local authority. I would also welcome an assurance that the Department will continue to monitor local authority spending so that it remains focused on the children who need it most.

Annette Brooke: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) because, as many of us recall, the subject matter of amendment No. 1 generated a great deal of debate in Committee. I explained at the time that I had intended to support ituntil I heard the arguments for it. Despite the fine words that we have just heard, amendment No. 1 would rip the heart out of the Bill. It is essential that reduce inequalities be left in.
	I was interested in the Conservative amendment because it had been pointed out to me that inequalities could be reduced by pulling the more advantaged down. Despite clause 1(1)(a), I still have a concern that that could happen, so I tabled amendment No. 34, with which I tried to achieve the best of all worlds. I stole the Conservatives' words, left in inequalities and added paragraph (c) to make the same point.
	As a belt and braces measure I tabled another amendment, which was not selected but might be even better. If paragraph (a) read
	improve the well-being of every young child in their area
	that sounds like quite an undertaking, but the phrase every young child is used elsewhere, so there is a precedent. I could not support amendment No. 1 which, by removing reduce inequalities, would undermine everything in the Bill.
	Several amendments refer to targets. We discussed that in Committee and we are all concerned about targets being centrally set and possibly having unintended consequences. There is an argument for requiring the monitoring of performance, rather than the setting of targets.
	Our amendment No. 11 relates to the duty to provide information, advice and assistance. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) proposes that clause 12(1) should state:
	An English local authority must establish and maintain a service providing information, advice and assistance for families in accordance with this section.
	I have previously expressed great concern about the fact that in the entire Bill there is no mention of families. This, if anywhere, is where such a reference should be. We want advice for parents and support for children, but the relationships and dynamics within the family are greater than the sum of its parts, whatever form the family unit takes. If clause 12(1) included a reference to families, we would ensure that information about a raft of family support measures was available. That small amendment would greatly enhance the Bill.
	We have had a useful debate on this large group of amendments and tackled the underlying philosophy of the Bill. The wording of clause 1(1) and (3) could be improved to make doubly sure that we do not reduce inequalities by pulling the more advantaged down.

Ann Coffey: I shall speak briefly on amendment No. 1, which seeks to remove the general duty on a local authority to
	reduce inequalities between young children in their area
	and replace that with
	show how it is raising the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged.
	After we debated the matter in Committee, it was still unclear why the Conservative Opposition want to remove the provision, and their position remains unclear.
	In Committee, Conservative Members argued that each child should be treated individually and not in relation to another child. The Bill includes a general duty to improve the well-being of young children in an area, and the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) suggested in Committee that there could be a perceived duty in some areas to make it more difficult for the best nurseries, because by allowing them to flourish inequalities are somehow increased, although I am not sure how that would happen.

Paul Goodman: My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) was making this point: when one attempts to reduce inequalities, one first attempts to bring up the standard of those who have fallen behind, but if one cannot do that, there is only one other optionbringing down the standard of those who are ahead.

Ann Coffey: I am not sure how that could possibly happen. The hon. Gentleman's comment reflects the Conservative party's general paranoia about levelling down. Conservative Members seem to think that there will be a huge move up and down the country to lower outcomes for the better-off in order to achieve a reduction in inequalities. I do not know how they think that will happen or the mechanism that they think we will use.

Paul Goodman: It is simple: the law depends on the words in the Bill, which are reduce inequalities. If it proves impossible to bring up the standard of those who are being left behind to those who have gone ahead, there is only one option, which is to bring down the standard of those who have gone ahead to those who have been left behind.

Ann Coffey: The hon. Gentleman has demonstrated the paranoia to which I have referred. I do not understand what mechanism will be used to achieve that levelling down.

Edward Miliband: Since the Bill was in Committee, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Oliver Letwin), who is policy chief of the Conservative party, has given an interview to The Daily Telegraph, in which he said that it is a priority to reduce the gap between rich and poorin other words, to reduce inequalities. Conservative Front Benchers may be out of step with their party on this issue.

Ann Coffey: I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that policy development with Conservative Front Benchers, who are clearly unaware of it. A concentrated effort would be required from all public agencies on levelling down, because all the evidence suggests that better educated and better informed people are, for example, changing their diets, taking more exercise and attending preventive health checks, with the result that their life chances and those of their children are improving at a better rate than those of less well informed people. I imagine that the only way to lower outcomes for the more advantaged would be to stop them getting information in the hope that they will stop doing the things that are improving their health.
	All the evidence suggests that more effort is required to find ways to improve outcomes for the most disadvantaged. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) has argued that outcomes will improve for the most disadvantaged if effort is concentrated on them, so it does not matter that outcomes for the advantaged are rising. However, if the gap widens and less advantaged people perceive that their life opportunities are much less than those of more privileged people, then they will think that the situation is unjust, and it will become more difficult to sustain a multicultural, diverse community.

Maria Miller: My argument is focused on raising standards for the most disadvantaged, and I have tabled amendments to focus more of our resources on that group. I feel that we are running the risk of not focusing enough of our energy on those who need help most, and perhaps by inference we are focusing some of our energy on those who do not need help as much.

Ann Coffey: But focusing on inequalities means that resources are focused on those who have least. That is what a target to reduce inequality does. I do not understand the problem that Conservative Front Benchers have with this.
	Returning to relativities and the importance of ensuring that the gap between rich and poor does not increase, I do not want to hark back to the past, but there is a generation of young people in my community who are difficult to help, to train and to employ. They grew up under a Government who believed that relativities did not matter and therefore ignored widening inequalities. I am glad that Conservative Front Benchers are addressing that offending behaviour, but I feel that they still have not quite got it.

Justine Greening: Action is more important than rhetoric. Under this Government, social mobility has dropped rather than increased. I am pleased that I am in my mid-30s, not my mid-teens, because the prospects for me now would be far bleaker than they were when I was 16.

Ann Coffey: That is the most unutterable rubbish that I have ever heard in this Chamber. The investment in children's centres is a recognition that we have to do something about disadvantage from an early age. Providing a general duty to address inequalities will lead to the development at a local level of policies that take particular account of helping the most disadvantaged because of the way in which that service provision will then be developed.
	For example, extra cash for improving school meals may make a local authority consider giving a subsidy to parents who are just above the level for qualification for free school meals. That would encourage parents to let their children have school meals instead of lunchboxes. As part of that initiative, parents might be encouraged to come in and talk about diet. That might help to reduce inequalities in outcomes in the long term. Without a duty to address inequalities, there will not be the same kind of pressure for innovative thinking at a local level to ensure that in every policy area thought is given to ensuring that outcomes for the most disadvantaged are improved.

Tim Loughton: That is what the amendment says.

Ann Coffey: Of course that is what it saysthat is why I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's problem with the clause on inequality.
	I have come to the conclusion that addressing inequalities, beyond warm words, is a step too far for the Conservatives. I believe that this duty, with a huge investment in early years, will mean that from an early age, when it matters most, parents will be supported and extra help will be given to those children, who without it will grow into another disaffected generation excluded from any real opportunity to change their lives.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Before I begin my remarks on amendment No. 1, I want to say what a great privilege it was to serve on the Standing Committee that scrutinised the Bill. Of course, all Standing Committees are riveting, but this one was in a league of its own, as Members from all parties vociferously debated their case. Several divisions arose, particularly on clause 1.
	On Second Reading, some of my hon. Friends may not have given enough attention to the importance of clause 1, which does two remarkable things. First, it places a duty on local authorities to improve the well-being of all young children in their area. Secondly, local authorities must reduce inequalities between young children in their areabut not, as the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) suggested, by dumbing down. As subsection l(a) and (b) make clear, inequalities can be reduced only by improving outcomes for the least well-off more quickly and to a greater extent than for others, so that they catch up and the gap is reduced. We debated that at length in Committee. I am sorry that the hon. Lady was not there to hear that debate.
	We had many vibrant exchanges in Committee. In the end, the Conservatives did not like the idea of reducing inequalities; instead, they wanted to raise the quality of outcomes of the most disadvantaged, and tabled a similar amendment to that end. The problem is that, if the outcomes for all children continue to improve, those at the bottom could be left even further behind. We know that inequality matters, especially in societies such as ours, where we deal largely with relativitiesrelative poverty and relative disadvantageand where parents want to provide more than the basics for their children. At least the Tories made their stance on the issue clear in Committee; the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) was less clear.

Annette Brooke: If the hon. Lady would like to look back at the speech that I made on Second Reading, she would see that I welcomed the mention of the reduction of inequalities. As I have explained, my reason for being concerned about the expression used is the fact that inequality could be reduced simply by bringing the top down, and if subsection (1)(a) relates simply to an average, that is still quite compatible. Even now, an amendment to that subsection is neededit is not foolproof. However, hon. Members will recall that I was horrified by the comments of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). No one could dispute the fact that I certainly believe in the reduction of inequalities, and we must talk about less-advantaged children gaining ground more rapidly than others.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) wanted to continue.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I was referring, of course, to the fact that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole abstained in the vote on a similar amendment in Committee, and we all concluded that the Liberal Democrats were ambivalent about whether to reduce inequality.
	To return to the importance of clause 1, the Child Poverty Action Group reminds us:
	Inequality is damaging because access to goods and services of those on the lowest incomes is intimately connected and affected by the spending power of the richest. Unless the gap between incomes of the richest and poorest is reduced we will continue to be divided by differential, income-related access to the opportunities in society.
	So it is terribly importantif we want to reduce inequalities, which Labour Members certainly dothat clause 1 stays exactly how it is, and we celebrate it.
	I was not going to make this point, but I am so incensed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening) that I have decided that I need to say something about child poverty. Under the last Conservative Administration, childhood poverty in this country increased massively. At least this Government have started to take enormous numbers of children out of poverty. If you want, I will send you the figures, so that you know exactly how many children were put into poverty by the previous Government.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that when they use the word you they are referring to the occupant of the Chair, not to the hon. Member whom they have in mind.

Justine Greening: I hesitate to engage in such a debate againthe one in Committee was particularly heatedbut I want to take this opportunity to reassure Labour Members of my own genuinely good intentions in supporting the amendment. All I want is the outcomes of the most disadvantaged children to improve, and stating that explicitly in the Bill would make it absolutely clear to local authorities. I fully understand the concerns, but there is a need to include that explicitly in the Bill, which is why I support the amendment.

Edward Miliband: I shall make a brief contribution because Conservative Front Benchers have unwittingly revealed the problem with today's Conservative party. On the one hand, Conservative Members use rhetoric that makes it sound as though they are caring, sharing, modern and interested in a fairer society, but when it comes to reality, they oppose the concept. Since my earlier intervention, I have done further research and I have a copy of the interview with the new policy chief of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), in The Daily Telegraph on 23 December 2005. He said:
	Of course, inequality matters. Of course, it should be the aim to narrow the gap between rich and poor.
	I do not know whether the Conservative party's policy chief scrutinises Front-Bench amendments but, on the basis of the interview, I cannot believe that he would approve of an amendment that would remove the aim of reducing the gap between the rich and the poor.

Maria Miller: Of course we are talking about the gap between rich and poor and we take that seriously. Surely the hon. Gentleman should take seriously the Prime Minister's statement on the matter. In a Newsnight interview in 2001, he said:
	Surely the important thing is to level up those people that don't have opportunity in our society.
	Perhaps the problem that we are revealing today is the gap between the hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister.

Edward Miliband: I think not. It is clear from the Bill that we both want to improve the well-being of young children and reduce inequalities between them. However, amendment No. 1 would remove the notion that the gap should be reduced. There is a simple explanation for that: in its heart, the Conservative party and its Front Benchers do not want to reduce the gap between rich and poorthey do not believe in that. That is a valid position, but it would be better to admit it. They are at odds with the remarks of the Conservative party's policy chief. Conservative Front Benchers may shake their heads but there is a blatant contradiction between the amendment and the words of the Conservative policy chief.

Tim Loughton: I have sat silently listening to that complete twaddle, although it is reassuring to find that a few subjects remain on which the old class war mentality of the Labour party leaps to the fore. If we suggested that we should favour the best off, the hon. Gentleman would have a good case. If we suggested that the gap should remain, he would have a good case. However, the wording of the amendment would replace reduce inequalities with
	show how it is raising the quality of outcomes.
	That does not mean doing nothing; it means actively raising the quality of outcomes of the least advantaged. That is our intention.

Edward Miliband: If class war is being waged, it is being waged, rather uncharacteristically, by the right hon. Member for West Dorset, who appears to have converted to what the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) describes as class warreducing the gap between rich and poor. However much the hon. Gentleman wriggles or squirms, the policy chief of the Conservative party said that he wants to reduce the gap between rich and poor but the amendment would remove that wording from the Bill. Increasing the outcomes of the most disadvantaged is perfectly consistent with widening the gap between rich and poor. That is at odds with what the Conservative party claims to be its policy.

Annette Brooke: It is almost as if crumbs were enough for one group and a feast for another.

Edward Miliband: I agree with the hon. Lady. The Bill should be passed as it stands. Conservative Members need to do some more homework, and especially to read what their policy chief said.

Beverley Hughes: Many of my hon. Friends have stolen my thunder in terms of replying to the debate, but I am grateful to them for doing so. Perhaps I can be briefer as a result.
	We have had a short rehearsal today of the debate that we had on this matter in Committee. It is clear that the Conservatives still have not fundamentally understood what we are trying to do. Either they do not understand our intentions or they still feel uncomfortable with them, as they are again trying to take the words reduce inequalities out of the Bill. As hon. Members have pointed out, the two paragraphs of clause 1(1) have to be read together. The first provides that an English local authority must
	improve the well-being of young children in their area,
	and I am advised by parliamentary counsel that that means all young children in their area. The second paragraph provides that the local authorities must reduce inequalities. It is clear, if the two provisions are read together, that it is possible to achieve those outcomes only by taking all children upwards in terms of achievements, and by doing so at a faster rate for disadvantaged children. That is how we will close the gap.
	The Conservatives are talking the talk, but they cannot yet walk the walk. They have not yet internalised a genuine commitment to the protestations of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and of their own leader, who has said that the test of Conservative policies will be to show
	how they help the most disadvantaged . . . not the rich.
	The Conservatives' amendment is inconsistent with the policies that their own leaders are putting forward. To echo the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband), for City of Durham (Dr. Blackman-Woods) and for Stockport (Ann Coffey), I just wonder whether the Conservative leadership is aware of the amendments that have been tabled. We hear their protestations in the media, but their default position, which we have seen in Committee and again today, is to be against reducing inequalities and not to be prepared to see our provision written into the Bill.
	I am glad that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) and her party now think that child poverty is something that we should be reducing, rather than increasing, as happened under the previous Conservative Government to a massive extent. If we had continued in the direction in which they were going, the number of children in poverty would have increased by more than 800,000. This Government are going in the right direction.
	Amendments Nos. 40, 36 and 52 deal with the definition of well-being. There is considerable misunderstanding about the intention of these amendments, because they attempt to rewrite the Children Act 2004, the Every Child Matters policies, and the five outcomes enshrined in those provisions. The Childcare Bill is using those five outcomes as the basis for the outcomes duty and other provisions, which is why we have incorporated them as they are. They are the outcomes that children and families identified, and they were endorsed in the 2004 Act. We are really not in the business of rewriting them now. I agree that relationships with parents are important, certainly in helping to achieve those outcomes, but local authorities should not be responsible for the quality of relationships between children and their parents. However, we want to help parents to support their children. We are sticking with the five outcomes, and that is why I am unable to accept those three amendments.
	I am quite puzzled by amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 61, which deal with target setting. We have just had a big debate about the importance of improving outcomes for children and the duty on local authorities to achieve that. The amendments would replace the targets for local authorities to achieve those outcomes with procedures for assessing. I am at a loss to understand how the Conservatives feel that criteria for judging whether a local authority has achieved those outcomes for children can instead be defined as procedures for assessing. They seem to want to replace an outcome criterion with a process criterion. That is not what we are about. We are interested in outcomes. That is the bottom line, and that is the basis on which the targets for local authorities will have to be decided. They will be decided in conjunction with local authorities, but they will relate to outcomes, not to how well authorities are dealing with the process.

Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister give way?

Beverley Hughes: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, but I will not. He has only recently come into the Chamber, which I think is discourteous.

Tim Loughton: He's very good.

Beverley Hughes: He may be very good, but he has not listened to the debate, and on that basis I will not give way to him. Had he listened more, I should have been happy to do so.
	Amendment No. 47 proposes to remove the ability to amend the definition of early childhood services. Had the hon. Member for Basingstoke either been in the Committee or read the report of this part of its proceedings, she would know that I granted what she is asking at that stage. I said that I envisaged the power being used only in the event of, say, structural changes in individual Departments such as the Department of Health or the Department for Work and Pensions that necessitated technical amendments, or if the experience of practitioners and local authorities made clear that young children would benefit from the inclusion of other services or other relevant partners. I have now put on record twice the circumstances in which we envisage the possibility of that power being used.
	Amendments Nos. 43 and 56 concern access to services. I believe that amendment No. 43 risks creating a perverse incentive. If authorities need to maximise access to early childhood services, there may be a danger of their encouraging groups of parents to take up services that they do not need. That would prevent resources from being devoted to the most disadvantaged, which is what the hon. Member for Basingstoke said she wanted. Changing identify to target, which is proposed in amendment No. 56, is unnecessary, because clause 3(3)(b) requires local authorities to encourage parents who have been identified to take up services. I hope that the hon. Lady will accept my assurance that the amendment is not necessary.
	Amendment No. 55 would remove any local authority flexibility in the sharing of resources with relevant partners. I think that we should leave the position as it is. Local flexibility is important. Resources are already being pooled, and I think that the judgment on when that is beneficial should also be made at local level.
	Amendment No. 11 deals with information for families. I have some sympathy with it. Our intention is to focus resources on information for parents and carers, because they will be the most responsible and will have the most influence. I appreciate that in many cases other family members will act on behalf of parents. I shall make clear in guidance that, in the right circumstancesobviously not when it is against parents' wishesthey too will be able to have relevant information.
	As for amendment No. 48, we know that funding and sustainability are key issues for local authorities planning child care. In Committee, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) confirmed that he did not expect authorities to look into the future to determine whether a provider was likely to last. Regulations under clause 12 will require local authorities to provide detailed information about providers, including their registration status, how many places they have, and how many funded places they offer. Authorities will also be required to tell parents how to gain access to Ofsted inspection reports that may include information. It is not clear to me what further information authorities would be expected to give other than their own assessments of sustainability, which could be misleading. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.
	There are issues that I have not mentioned, including the point raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) about Investors in Children. I can tell the hon. Lady that I am not convinced of the need for continuation of a kitemark scheme. However, I said to her in Committee that we are working closely with the National Children's Bureau to see what other arrangements we can put in place, supported by the sectorthat is appropriateto enable the funding that goes to local authorities to be used to ensure that there are local schemes. That will ensure that there is continuing development and improvement through those quality assurance schemes, which is the right way to go.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Basingstoke will think that I have replied sufficiently for her to withdraw her amendment. Certainly, there is still a considerable political divide on amendment No. 1 and I make no apologies for not accepting it.

Maria Miller: I am sure that many people listening to the debate will share my disappointment that the Government still hark back to eight years ago and the records of bygone days, rather than starting to talk about their own record. They should do less of that and instead take account of their record and be responsible for it.
	The amendments in the group are important and I am sure that they will be debated further in the other place when it considers the Bill. The debate on the role of parents has been useful. I was glad to gain agreement from the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on the fact that it is quite extraordinary that the Bill makes no reference whatsoever to the role of parents. I hope that that can be thought about a little further.
	It is clear from the Minister's comments that, perhaps unsurprisingly, we are not going to agree on targets. We feel that a target culture is not helpful in always driving the right outcomes, but we will have to agree to differ on that point.
	I want to pick up on the Minister's response on the pooling of resources. I am pleased that she is satisfied that we can leave a slight open-endedness when ensuring that partner agencies are compelled to take part in discussions and provide staff and resources locally for child care. I hope that she is right that that will be sufficient to secure the support that is needed. Knowing the financial position of my primary care trust in north Hampshire, which is 14 million in deficit, I find it difficult to see how great priority is going to be given to the matter in the future. I am sure that all those issues will receive further discussion in the Lords.
	Returning to our discussion on mind the gap, which has taken up most of the debate on this group of amendments, I am pleased that the Prime Minister agrees with us that it is levelling up that is important. We are entirely happy with the idea of reducing the gap between people who are disadvantaged and those who are not, but we believe that that is best done by raising aspirations. People listening to the debate will find it difficult to understand why Government Members take such exception to our argument. As a parent, I understand why many parents throughout the country believe that we should have better aspirations for our childrenwhether we come from the most wealthy or the most deprived areas of the country. We believe that if we put raising aspirations at the core of the Bill, we will make it better.

Peter Bottomley: As the Minister rightly said, I was not here at the beginning of the debateI was chairing a churches meeting elsewherebut I want to pick up a specific point on assessment. To talk about well-being by itself is useless to parents. I do not know how one would count it or measure it. If we go back to the Court child health report or the Plowden primary school report, we see that everything in them is measurable and there are procedures for assessing them. I hope that the Minister will reflect on what she has said and, if she will not accept the amendment now, talk to her officials and get better advice than she has offered to the House.

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point; I wish that he had been able to make it a little earlier.

Edward Miliband: I want to give the hon. Lady one last chance to redeem herself in the eyes of the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). Given the words from him that I read out in the House, does she not agree that an amendment that would remove the words reduce inequalities between is a problem for her and, if she persists, she may well have to explain herself to the right hon. Gentleman on Monday.

Maria Miller: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was trying to give him one last chance to say something new, but he failed to do so.
	I am entirely in accordance with my fellow Wessex MP, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. We are entirely at one in our need and our desire to reduce the gap, but we are saying that it is about raising aspirations, not some vague notion of reducing inequalities.
	These issues are not mutually exclusive. We can reduce the gap between those who are less well off and more in need, and those who are not. We can do that most effectively by raising aspirations and raising standards, and that is what we would like the Bill to focus on. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18
	  
	Meaning of Childcare

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 10, line 17, at end insert
	'(6A)   Childcare does not include care provided for a child who is detained in
	(a)   a young offender institution, or
	(b)   a secure training centre.'.
	This is a technical amendment that corrects an erroran omission from the definition of child care in clause 18. It will ensure that young people in young offender institutions and secure training centres will not be considered as being in child care. That means that local authorities will not be under a duty to secure sufficiency of provision or to assess provision under clauses 6 and 11 respectively. It is clearly not appropriate to describe young people in those institutions as being in child care. The amendment will ensure clarity in the Bill and I commend it to the House.

Peter Bottomley: I do not think that the Minister has justified her amendment. We know that the children who are most likely to be casualties are those in care. We know that the children in care who are most likely to be casualties are those in secure institutions. The Minister is shaking her head. Does she want to tell me that I am wrong? If not, I shall work on the basis that she agrees with me. It is the children of the state who have the most awkward lives and are likely to face the worst constellation of difficulties as they grow up.
	If the local authority has no responsibility for the welfare of the child in the circumstances that the Minister described, who will carry out that duty effectively? My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and I have experience of children who are parked in our town, in small children's homes. Many of them get dedicated care, and many of their experiences are not good. [Interruption.] I will give way, if the Minister wants to intervene.
	We are debating an amendment tabled by the Government, who believe that they have wrongly drafted legislation. At present, local authority social services can have some interest in a child in secure accommodation.

Beverley Hughes: It may help the hon. Gentleman to get to his point if he understands that the Bill is about children aged nought to five and the duty of local authorities in terms of the outcomes for children aged nought to fivenot their general well-beingand the provision of child care for children aged nought to 14. Patently, young people in institutions do not fall into that category.

Peter Bottomley: The point that I am trying to make, to which I hope the Minister was listening, is that we can use the amendment to focus attention on those whom she is trying to exclude from the Bill's provisions. She may need to do that for technical reasons, but if she is saying that we are wrong to be concerned about the interests of children who would otherwise be covered in theory, she is wrong. One thing that the Government should do is to direct their attention to improving the situation of children in the circumstances that I described.
	The Minister may say that the peg for that is purely a technicality. She may say that the amendment is purely a technicality. However, the lives of the young people who concern me are not a technicality. They are at a stage when some of them have a chance of redemption and of getting a positive experience of life. The sooner she acknowledges that the better. She gave bland responses to the points made by Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen on the previous group of amendments. She can rightly say that nought to five does not cover those people, so the amendment does not relate to them, but the welfare of older children, whose circumstances would otherwise be covered by the Bill, does matter. I hope that the Government take that forward in a more positive way and that there is a process of assessing the outcomes, rather than just having targets.

Beverley Hughes: The situation of young people in young offender institutions is important. The Government take it seriously. However, it is outside the scope of the Bill.
	Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41
	  
	The Learning and Development Requirements

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 20, line 16, leave out from 'which' to 'and' in line 17 and insert
	'young children should experience and learn, appropriate to their age, ability'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 8, in page 20, line 16, leave out 'taught to' and insert 'experienced by'.
	No. 51, in clause 46, page 23, line 4, at end insert
	'(1A)   The reasons for any such disapplication or modification must be set out clearly and published.'.
	No. 53, in page 23, line 10, at end insert
	'(3)   The reasons for any such disapplication or modification must be set out clearly and published.'.

Annette Brooke: This is the most important part of our discussion. We might have had a lengthy and sparky debate on the previous string of amendments, but to my mind learning and development is the most important issue to address.
	I welcome the principles of the early years foundation stage, which lays out the basis of a curriculum so that we can make clear judgments about quality, which is set against milestones. Indeed, the early years foundation stage provides opportunities. However, including the word taught means that there is a great possibility of unintended consequences.
	As we know, young children learn by being supported to play and by exploring the world around them. That must be reflected in the learning and development requirements. It is difficult to incorporate in the Bill the reality that children learn through play, which is why in Committee we tried to replace the word taught with experience. As that was rejected, and bearing in mind the clause heading, we have redrafted the amendment to include experiencing and learning.
	There is a concern that we might give out wrong messages to child care practitioners. We all know that we have much work to do in upskilling the work force. With the inclusion of the word taught, it will be all too easy to incorporate practices that do not generate the type of learning that we would like young children to gain at such a key phase of their development.

Paul Goodman: Does the hon. Lady agree with the Daycare Trust, which in its comments on the Bill is worried that the Government's approach could lead to a schoolificationa new wordof early years provision for very young children?

Annette Brooke: That comment probably does reflect my concerns. As I said in Committee, the word taught, whatever the dictionary definition, has connotations: it implies a group of young people, children or adults receiving instruction, rather than learning by experience at the right level.
	The anecdote that I want to mention came from a former inspector of early years, who, on looking through some Ofsted inspection reports, noted that the early years report said that worksheets were not being used. The provider in question responded by providing worksheets, but generally speaking, they are not appropriate at that level. The danger is that we will make this incredibly important stage of learning far too formalised. We will not achieve what we could achieve through this Government's vast investment in early years provision unless we ensure that there is the right environment and culture.
	What we really need to do is to add depth and richness to children's lives. They need to have plenty of opportunities to explore the world, and plenty of experiences that they can choose from for themselves. Such learning must not be so prescriptive that we stunt

David Taylor: Does the hon. Lady not agree that the clause's existing phrase embraces experience and learning and does not necessarily have to be interpreted in an over-formal, over-prescriptive way? Why does it need amending?

Annette Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which has actually underlined the point that the word taught is incongruous. In fact, it is incompatible with the guidance notes that the Minister distributed in Committee, which were almost encouraging in terms of how providers should approach the early years foundation stage. We are simply objecting to the word taught, which I sincerely believe should be changed, as all early years providers agree. Whatever the civil servants may be saying, we should look to the professionals in this field.
	Early years is the most important period: it impacts on future life experiences and attainments. During early years, children should be in a setting that provides a relevant and positive learning experience, so that they can develop a sense of their own identitynot that of the child care workerand become self-confident learners. This is about setting the scene for a hopeful and positive education experience, which inevitably becomes more formalised once children go to school. At that early stage, it is absolutely vital that we enable children to develop at their own pace and give them every opportunity to learn and to assimilate as much as they possibly can. Children learn at different rates, and they must want to learn and be ready to learn. When we use the word taught, which has specific connotations, we should remember that the ratio of pupils to teachers is usually higher than one to one. At this critical stage, we have to allow children to progress at their own rate.
	I hope that we will get a positive response from the Government. This issue was debated in detail in Committee, and I felt that between us, we were winning the argument; however, it was not to be. As I have said, this is the single most important change that needs to be made to the Bill, and I hope that the Government are now listening.
	I turn briefly to the amendments tabled by the Conservatives. They will be useful in securing further clarifications, as the answers in Committee to the questions that they raise aroused great unease. Clause 46 allows exemptions to the early years foundation stage to be granted to certain providers. The worry is that they could be granted here, there and everywhere, with the result that we lose the basis for quality assessment.
	I understand that there might be a very good reason for granting an exemption in the occasional, one-off case, but clause 46 implies that exemptions could be widespread. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) hope that the Minister will say more about how the clause will be implemented, as I feel that there could be a case for deleting it entirely.

Tim Loughton: We support the amendment, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) has shown again that she shares our approach to these matters. It is worth noting that the phalanx of class-war dogmatists has scarpered now that we are dealing with serious technical matters to do with the quality of child care. The fact that their interest has waned rapidly says a lot about their presence earlier, and reveals their limited interest in what the Bill is trying to do.
	Amendment No. 9 centres on the use of the rogue word taught. We concur that it is completely inappropriate for very young children, especially those aged between nought and two. I shall not rehearse Professor Bowlby's attachment theory, which the Committee considered in some detail, but it is clear that very early years children must be treated very differently. Whether or not the term schoolification is apt for the attempt to impose curriculums on them, the approach itself is simply not appropriate.
	I draw some comfort from the more enlightened contributions made by Labour Back Benchers, and I welcome what the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) said a moment ago. Alas, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) is no longer present, but in Committee she supported our case. She spoke at length about peek-a-boo games, but also about children. She said:
	I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by Opposition Members about the use of the word taught . . . However, if we concentrate on taught literacy, we risk turning off small children.[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 15 December 2005; c. 251252.]
	The first two years of a child's life are especially important, but too often the Government seem to want to rush to push young children through a regimented school system. They want to tick the boxes about children's ability to read, write and add up, but they do not give those children enough time and space to grow up and become sociable, well ordered and normal kids. That is the problem, and I fear that talking in the language of school curriculums does nursery-age children a big disservice. The Minister may say that taught is only one word, but it is a very important one whose use, we feel, sends out all the wrong signals.
	The hon. Lady said presciently that if the Minister did not accept the amendment that we proposed in Committee she would be realistic and seek on Report to change the word taught to the phrase experienced by. Well, hey presto, the hon. Lady's word is our command. Our amendment would do exactly that, because we feel that the phrase experienced by is much more sympathetic to the social development that should be going on in those child care environments, rather than a mini school curriculum, which is what the Government run the danger of being perceived as trying to thrust on them.
	We had an interesting debate in Committee on the issue, with some excellent contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), with her great tales about The Very Hungry Caterpillar, on which she is the House's leading authority.
	Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 seek clarity and to add transparency to the Bill. I do not know the conditions under which exemptions should be conferred by the Secretary of State, such that the learning and development requirements need not apply or can be modified. We are in danger of ending up with a bit of shambles unless we have a clear steer from the Minister as to what the exemption offer is trying to do and in what terms and on what occasions it might be used. The amendments request clarity and transparency in the Bill and seek to ensure that if any exemptions or disapplications are made, the reasons must be set out clearly and published, so that everybody can understand them and be sure that we are all acting on a level playing field or whether the fear of a two-tier system is justified.
	We support the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole on amendment No. 9, which concurs with the intention of amendment No. 8. If she does not choose to push that amendment to a Division, I hope that the Government will nevertheless reflect on the point again in the other place. We all share the same intentions and the Minister's response to my pronouncements on the merits of attachment theory suggested that she concurred with our view on what we should be trying to achieve in those early years. However, the language that the Bill uses will be adhered to by local authorities and child care providers when they seek to do what the Government want them to do. They are in danger of throwing baby out with the bath water, by trying to make baby grow up rather faster than baby needs to, because baby needs to learn about how to be a decent child before getting into a school curriculum. The word taught smacks of schoolification.

Maria Eagle: I hope to be able to provide some reassurance, although in the light of our experience in Committee I am not convinced that I will be able to allay completely the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) or the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). I do not think that there is much between us. I know that the word taught is between us, but I hope to try to provide some reassurance.
	It is important to use the word taught, and it does not necessarily imply the extreme formality that Opposition Members fear. It is a term recognised by the early years sector, and reflects the language already used in the foundation stage and in the Education Act 2002. It does not necessarily imply sitting toddlers in rows and cramming them with rote learning, no matter what age they are. I accept that taught can have that connotation, but it does not necessarily have it.
	The hon. Lady will forgive me if I return to the dictionary definition because dictionaries, especially the Oxford English Dictionary, are the basis from which we start when interpreting what we mean by the words that we use. Although it is true that the dictionary includes formalised definitions of teach such as
	to impart information to skill to (a person) or about (a subject) . . . do this for a living . . . put forward as fact or principle,
	another definition is more informal and is what we intend the work of the early years foundation stage to be. It is to
	cause to adopt (a practice etc) by example or experience.
	That uses some of the words that hon. Members are trying to replace taught with.
	My argument is that taught encapsulates what hon. Members are seeking to replace it with. To remove the word completely leaves us thrashing around to try to make sure that we can encapsulate fully the meaning of what we are trying to say in the legislation. Clarity is important in legislation.
	This is not conclusive, but some technical defects with amendments Nos. 8 and 9 make it difficult for them to be accepted. They illustrate what could happen if we were to remove a word such as taught from the Bill, as amendment No. 8 would do by removing the word taught from the matters, skills and processes that practitioners should offer young children of different abilities and maturities and replacing it with reference to the matters, skills and processes that young children should experience by their involvement in or exposure to learning and development. That is a complicated way of removing a word from the Bill, and does not add to the clarity of the meaning.
	Amendment No. 9 would have a more complex effect because it would remove the word taught from the Bill by replacing the phrase
	which are required to be taught to young children of different abilities and maturities
	with
	young children should experience and learn, appropriate to their age, ability
	The effect of that would not be clear, because it would allow learning and development requirements to specify the matters, skills and processes that young children should experience, and it is hard to see how matters and skills can be experienced. I do not think that it would add to the clarity of the Bill if we were to adopt the wording that either amendment suggests, although I understand the point that hon. Members are making.

Andrew Stunell: I have been listening carefully to the Minister's argument, although I have had difficulty in following some of its intricacies.
	If the hon. Lady accepts that the alternative words proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) cover the full range of what she wants to achieve and if she is arguing that the word taught covers not only that but something that she does not want to achieveyoung children being taught formallydoes she not agree that it would be better to accept my hon. Friend's words? If they need tidying up, perhaps the hon. Lady could give us a hint that she will go in that direction. She seems to be trying to achieve something far beyond the aims behind the initial wording of the Bill.

Maria Eagle: No, I do not accept that. I said that the words with which Members have tried to replace the word taught are fully encapsulated in that word, so they add nothing. I have tried to illustrate that removing taught would make it more difficult to understand the clause. I understand the points that are being made about formality in education at too early an age, which we debated extensively in Committee. I do not think that there is much difference between us in respect of the outcomes that we want.
	Removing the word taught will not solve things or add clarity in any useful way. It is well known in the early years sector, and is clear in Birth to Three Matters and the foundation stage documentation that taught means much more informal learning than that for older children.

Annette Brooke: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Maria Eagle: Yes, but I do not want to go round in circles.

Annette Brooke: Will the Minister confirm that in Committee it was established that the word taught does not appear in Birth to Three Matters? We are particularly concerned that we seem to be combining the whole age range.

Maria Eagle: But the word teaching does appear in that document. We could go round in circles for a long time, but our positions are close enough not to worry too much about that definition. I cannot accept the amendment, but there is not too much difference in substance between what we and Opposition Members are saying. Taught is only a little word, but it is obviously a central concept and we need to make sure that everybody understands it fully.
	There will be further opportunities for us to make it clear that we are not talking about extremely formalised learning. There will be regulations and we shall hold consultations on them. There is ample opportunity to ensure that there is no misunderstanding in the sector about what we mean.

Justine Greening: Will the Minister give way?

Maria Eagle: I will, but this really is the last time.

Justine Greening: I am grateful that the Minister recognises that there is confusion. Parents in Putney have expressed concern about the word taught and that should be borne in mind as the measure is rolled out in the wider world, to allay parents' fears that the framework is more rigid than the Minister intends.

Maria Eagle: I hear what the hon. Lady saysher constituency surgeries must be interesting.
	As we draw up the regulations, there will be more opportunities to deal with the issues

Maria Miller: Will the Minister give way?

Maria Eagle: No, I shall not give way again on that issue.
	I want to move on to amendments Nos. 51 and 53, which were tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. He asked me to provide more clarity about the waiving of learning and development requirements in certain circumstances. I want to reassure him that the measure will not drive a coach and horses through all our early development aims.
	Such a waiver might occur where a local authority had difficulty in securing the training required to improve the skills of the local child care work force by 2008. For example, a small provider such as a playgroup might not technically yet fulfil all the requirements of the early years foundation stage, but could none the less offer an excellent service, or be not too far from being able to do so; the staff might be undergoing training but not have completed it. We would want the provider to improve so that it could deliver the framework rather than closing it down for a short period until the staff managed to gain the required qualifications. There could thus be a time-limited exemption so that the provider was not closed down when the early years foundation stage was implemented.
	We want to provide flexibility, while ensuring that quality is maintained and improved. We also want to take into account some of the practical difficulties that small, local organisations might experience in getting themselves up to scratch as we make the transition to the early years foundation stage.
	The hon. Gentleman suggested that it would be appropriate to publish the reasons for exemptions, disapplications or modifications in respect of individual children. It would, however, be unfair to single out individual children in that way. Indeed, Members said earlier, with reference to another matter, that they did not want data about individual children to be published, yet the amendment seems to suggest that we should do just that.
	The situations that we are talking about are likely to be very rare. For example, it might be necessary to exempt specific individual children from certain aspects of the early years foundation stage where it is necessary because of their parents' religious beliefs. For example, I understand that members of the Plymouth Brethren do not really like information and communications technology, and they do not like their children to work on computers. If work on a computer does not conform with a parent's religious belief, even though that is a minority religious belief, it may be appropriate to exempt an individual child from requirements that relate to ICT.
	We are talking about smallish and individual exceptions such as that. We do not anticipate that the provision would be widespread or extensively used. We want to try to provide the necessary flexibility to ensure that we are not riding roughshod over important matters such as human rights and the rights of individuals to follow their own religious beliefs, for example.
	I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman, and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendments. I am sure, however, that hon. Members will feel less happy to withdraw their amendments in respect of the word taught, and I fear that we might continue to have that debate in another place.

Peter Bottomley: The Minister has been quite convincing on amendment No. 53. I hope that the interpretation of that is that the parent will be told why their children are being exempted from certain things. Obviously, it is at the request of the parent that no information is to be given. If there is some reason why the parent has not asked, it is perhaps worth bearing in mind that parents should be told of the situation. That is a different sense of the meaning of publishednot keeping secret.
	As I think the Minister recognises, she is not on quite such strong ground on amendment No. 51. The main point of the debate is about the word taught. The Minister explained that taught meant the same as experienced by, and then explained that experienced by necessarily did not mean the same as taught. It seems that that is where she got out of her circular argumenton the wrong spot. It would be a good idea if before this issue comes up in another place the Minister were to seek advice and would ask what would be lost

Maria Miller: I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. I wonder whether he shares my concerns. The Minister was talking about drawing up regulations. When doing so, should she not take account of the impact that formalised teaching may have on premature babies who are still struggling to catch up in development terms during the important early years?

Peter Bottomley: The Minister may choose to respond again at the end of the debate, or she may want to consider this question when it comes up in another place. If the clause were not in the Bill, I do not think that anyone would miss it. Most people who are caring for children, especially in an early education setting, are trying to do all these things in any event. Given that the clause is in place, the Minister should be asking those whose opinions she respectsI hope that she respects our opinions in this place, but there are others whose opinions she may respectthat if taught means the same as experienced by, cannot experienced by mean the same as taught, and would not that then be satisfactory?

Annette Brooke: I drew a diagram, and I think that the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) has expressed the situation clearly. I drew a circle to incorporate everything that taught meant. Learning and experience was clearly a sub-set of taught, so taught means a great deal more than learning and experience. That is clear.
	The Minister questioned whether learning and experience could be applied to matters and skillsbut when I visited the most excellent early years centre that I have ever seen, there was complete free choice for all the young children. Nothing was structured. The experience led me to ask some questions. I was given an example. If, for instance, some children decided that they wanted to fly kites, and it was found that there were not enough kites, others who wished to join them would have to make kites. For that they would need to find scissors from the cupboard. They would need to find paper. They would use scissors because they wanted to make kites, like the others. That is a clear example where one might say, You must be taught how to use scissors. However, in the early years, we are talking of a skill that is acquired by learning and experience, when that skill is wanted. I question whether the Minister is right on this point.

Peter Bottomley: We have been taught that the word taught has six letters. The sixth word after the word taught in clause 41 is abilities. Perhaps the Minister should table a manuscript amendment to change it to aptitude as the Department has found it difficult to distinguish between the two.

Annette Brooke: That could take us down another route. The task in hand is to remove the word taught, so if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will concentrate on that.
	I cannot stress enough the importance of changing that word. I am happy to accept that the drafting of the amendment is not perfect, but, having served on many Committees, I know that when one wants to say something, it is worth trying to write the amendment oneself, because if it makes a good point, professionals will rewrite it. I am concerned about the impact of the provision on professionals in the field.
	A great deal of consultation is under way to establish exactly what the early years foundation stage will include. There is a great deal of confidence about those discussions, but there is not confidence among professionals while the word taught remains in the Bill. Their anxiety is much greater than the Government have conceded. Given the lateness of this debate I am not going to press the amendment to a Division, but I very much hope that Ministers will give a great deal of thought to the matter as the Bill proceeds to the other place. The amendments are certain to discussed further, and I expect that there will be professional input in the other place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43
	  
	Welfare Requirements

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 21, line 29, at end insert
	'(ab)   the arrangements for safeguarding the children concerned;'.[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 59
	  
	Regulations Governing Activities

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 29, line 33, at end insert
	'(ab)   the arrangements for safeguarding the children concerned;'.[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 67
	  
	Regulations Governing Activities

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 34, line 35, at end insert
	'(ab)   the arrangements for safeguarding the children concerned;'.[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 75
	  
	Disqualification from Registration

Amendments made: No. 22, in page 40, line 2, after 'children' insert
	'or on grounds relating to his health'.
	No. 23, in page 40, line 11, after '1989 (c. 41)' insert 'or any prescribed enactment,'.
	No. 24, in page 40, line 13, at end insert
	'(ga)   he has been given a caution in respect of an offence of a prescribed kind;'.
	No. 25, in page 40, line 32, after 'section' insert
	'caution includes a reprimand or warning within the meaning of section 65 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37);'.[Beverley Hughes.]

Clause 101
	  
	General Interpretation etc.

Maria Eagle: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 50, line 32, at end insert
	'(f)   the Council of the Isles of Scilly;'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 17.

Maria Eagle: I hope to deal with these amendments very quickly. Government amendment No. 16 refers to the council of the Isles of Scilly, which we have rather stupidly omitted from the definition of an English local authority. We clearly need to include that council in the Bill. Government amendment No. 17 ensures that the National Assembly for Wales can commence at the appropriate time the provisions in schedule 2. These are technical amendments, and I hope that the House will accept them speedily.

Tim Loughton: I am a little worried, as the good burghers of the Isles of Scilly must be seething, about an obvious omission that should have been addressed at the outset. Goodness knows, the Government have had enough time to deal with this. The Under-Secretary skimmed over it in a single sentence, but I would be grateful if she gave us an insight into the structure of the education authority on the Isles of Scilly so that we can understand why the change is essential.

Peter Bottomley: If the omission had not been spotted and the amendment had not been tabled, this is the kind of change that the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill could properly deal with. The Government would be well advised to ensure that such a change would be covered by that Bill. The Minister ought to congratulate the person who spotted the omission.
	On Government amendment No. 17, it is right to pay tribute to those who advise the Minister and are involved in the drafting of the Bill. When a Bill proposes amendments to nine Acts, things are as complicated as they can be, especially in relation to consequential changes. Those who do that work deserve praise. The work is not as exciting as some of the policy changes and arguments, but detailed attention to what is in a Bill does matter.

Maria Eagle: I am happy to do as the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) suggests and pass on the congratulations of hon. Members to my officials, who work extremely hard to make sure that Bills are as good as they are. Although nothing is perfect, they frequently approach perfection, in my experience.
	As for the comments of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) about the education system in the Isles of Scilly, I can tell him that there is a population of 2,000 there. I cannot tell him how many of those people are children, but because the population is so small, the islands may require separate arrangements with regard to provisions in the Bill. I hope that is enough to satisfy him.
	Amendment agreed to.

Clause 105
	  
	The Appropriate Authority by Whom Commencement Order is Made

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 51, line 21, after 'Schedule 1)' insert
	'and sections (Provision of information about young children: England) and (Provision of information about young children: transitory provision)'.
	No. 27, in page 51, line 23, after 'Part 2' insert
	'and section (Provision of information about children: Wales)'.
	No. 28, in page 51, line 23, at end insert
	'(3A)   In relation to section (Disqualification for registration under Children Act 1989) the appropriate authority is
	(a)   in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and
	(b)   in relation to Wales, the Assembly.'.
	No. 17, in page 51, line 25, after '24' insert '28, 29(4)'.[Beverley Hughes.]

Schedule 2
	  
	Minor and Consequential Amendments

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 56, line 2, at end insert
	'Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c. 43)
	  In section 65 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (meaning of family proceedings), in subsection (1) after paragraph (n) insert
	(nza)   section 72 or section (Power of constable to assist in exercise of powers of entry) of the Childcare Act 2006;.
	Supreme Court Act 1981 (c. 54)
	  In Schedule 1 to the Supreme Court Act 1981 (distribution of business in High Court) in paragraph 3 (which deals with business assigned to the Family Division) after paragraph (e) insert
	(ea)   proceedings under section (Power of constable to assist in exercise of powers of entry) of the Childcare Act 2006;.[Beverley Hughes.]
	Title
	Amendment made: No. 29, line 6, after 'in England;' insert
	'to amend Part 10A of the Children Act 1989 in relation to Wales;'.[Beverley Hughes.]
	Order for Third Reading read.

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Our debates on the various stages of the Bill have been productive, constructive, at times humorous, and well intentioned. I pay tribute to the commitment that Members in all parts of the House have shown, and to the detailed knowledge that many of them have brought to our deliberations as a result of many years of interest in the subject, going far beyond our experience as parents.
	Apart from the one, albeit fundamental, dividing line between us on reducing inequalities, we have achieved a remarkable degree of consensus on the principles of the Bill and its aims. That is a measure of the extent to which the Government have shifted the ground. Such transformational change as we have seen over recent years, culminating in the Bill, in marked contrast to the previous Government's policies, commands consensus across the political parties.
	The Bill has benefited from the close scrutiny to which it has been subjected, and the changes that have been made have improved it. I thank the Deputy Speakers who have chaired our discussions today, and our Chairmen in Committee. I thank the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who led the debates from the Opposition Benches, and their hon. Friends. I also thank the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), and all my hon. Friends who have taken such an active part in the debate and helped us enormously, and I thank the Clerks and our officials, whom my hon. Friend has just mentioned, who have supported us ably throughout. I am grateful to everybody.
	Let me put the Bill in the context of Government objectives since 1997 of transforming the experience of children, young people and their families. We are doing that, first, because we are serious about increasing social mobility, reducing inequalities and tackling the long-standing disadvantages for many children and families that existed prior to 1997. Secondly, we need to respond to the labour market changes that have occurred over recent years, the aspirations of women as well as men, and the desire for both parents to have the flexibility of combining work and home life in ways that still provide high-quality options for their children.
	Thirdlywe have not discussed this issue, but it is none the less importantas a nation, we need to maximise the achievement of all our people in the face of increasing global competition, which includes rising economies such as China and India. We must ensure that every child reaches their potential and goes on from early years to educational success. Investment in early years is not only a social and moral imperative, but an essential measure for parents in their home and work lives and for our international economic competitiveness.
	The Government have worked to bring about that transformation since 1997. We started with a massive increase in child care places and moved on to the Children Act 2004, the Every Child Matters programme, the five outcomes, the 10-year child care strategy, the promise of a children's centre in every community and extended schools, and this landmark Bill extends that process. It is the first ever Bill dedicated to early years and child care, which demonstrates our commitment to early years and Every Child Matters. We are providing opportunities and choice, improving outcomes, reducing inequalities and increasing long-term investment.
	The Bill focuses on outcomes and ensures that parents have a real choice. The Bill empowers local authorities to be the strategic leaders, which is a role that they will fulfil in consultation with parents and providers. Parents will be given the information that they need, and there will be a new approach to inspection and regulation. The early years foundation stage will build on what works and good parenting, and the child care register will extend quality. Last but not least, the need to safeguard children underpins the entire Bill. That is everybody's business, and we will discuss it in greater detail when we consider the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill, which has been mentioned today.
	The Bill is important and exciting. It starts to redraw the welfare state in terms of what families can expect to be provided for them locally in their areas. The focus is on quality, improving outcomes for children in early years and reducing inequalities. The Bill is an integral part of our Every Child Matters programme, and it will ensure that every child has the opportunity to achieve their full potential.
	It is good to see the commitment of Opposition Members to the Bill, which I commend to the House.

Tim Loughton: I echo the Minister in saying that we had well-mannered, good-humoured and well-informed debates on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. I thank the Committee Chairmen, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton). As has happened today, we conducted our deliberations in Committee without guillotines or knives, and the lesson is that we can have a rational debate without being constrained by artificial timings, which the Government Whips too often seek to impose.
	I thank my hon. Friends who have contributed. Our Whip in Committee was my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who was here earlier today. We witnessed bravura performances by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who mentioned The Very Hungry Caterpillar. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) is very well-informed, but, alas, she is abroad today and cannot join us. My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) made a cameo appearance on the Front Bench this afternoon, when he was the target of so much vitriol from Labour Membershe has now scarpered, as have some of his attackers.
	Many additional amendments have been tabled. It assists debate if we can have as much notice and as detailed an up-front explanation of those as possible. If the Government intend to table further amendments, I hope that they give colleagues in the upper House a little more breathing space by supplying them as far in advance of the debate as possible.
	We welcome the additional measures to safeguard children. As the Minister knows, over the past few years we have fully concurred and co-operated with the Government in their various Bills to try to make the protection of our children, particularly vulnerable children, a genuine priority and to achieve some genuine change from the poor outcomes that they have experienced for far too long. It is absolutely right that this Bill, like the other legislation that is yet to come before us, should be proof against those who would abuse and undermine our children.
	There are other good things in the Bill. The Minister called it a landmark Bill and said that it is part of the redrawing of the lines of the welfare state. That suggests that the Government set rather more store by the great dogma of their programme than we do. As far as we are concerned, the Bill is about affording more people the chance to access quality child care to improve the start that their children get in life, whether they come from disadvantaged or advantaged backgrounds. That is why we have wanted to concentrate on those from a disadvantaged background getting those opportunities as well.
	It is interesting, amusing and reassuring that we can occasionally rattle the great class warriors who still exist on Labour Benches, albeit in a rather confused way that contradicts their own Prime Minister. They set great store by phrases about reducing inequalities instead of concentrating on improving outcomes for those who need and deserve our support most of all. I do not think that those two things are mutually exclusive. It is interesting that there have been so many attempts to put divisions between what Members say. All that we are trying to achieve is better outcomes for the most disadvantaged, but for many, the argument about reducing inequalities is more important.
	The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) rightly said that one of the most important parts of the Bill concerns the word taughtjust six little letters and one little word. We had a great debate about that. The Minister was at pains to say that although there was little between us, that one little word was so fundamental that it had to stay in the Bill. That is a shame, and I hope that the Government will reflect on it. My noble colleagues in the upper House will certainly return to the subject as the Bill proceeds.
	It was encouraging that we almost had a rebellion from the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), who has also scarpered. She threatened to vote with the Opposition at one stage and abstained in one vote. Given her great expertise on early years child care and the whole subject of play for children, the Government would do well to listen to her comments.
	The Government accepted many of our arguments and sympathised with many of our intentions, but in the end they did not accept any of our amendments. That is disappointing.
	It is worth pointing out that the success of the Bill will rely enormously on the way in which local authorities embrace, interpret and enact its provisions, which of course bring no additional moneys with them.
	All our discussions in the House will amount to nothing unless local authorities are able to do their job of ensuring that there is sufficient child care and that it is provided in a balanced way, because many of the private and voluntary independent providers, who have provided so much child care in the past, are threatened by unfair competition. The child care places that are lost must be set aside the creation of new ones. We admit that the net figure has increased, but the sustainability of those places is important.
	The Bill is not just about the numbers or the shiny new buildings that may house those child care places, whether in nurseries or whatever, but about the quality of provision and ensuring that we are giving those children the very best start in life. That is absolutely fundamental. We can write all the terms into the Bill that the Government wish and we can exhort local authorities to ensure that the numbers tally with what the Government want, but the most important thing is the quality of the outcome that the Bill achieves for those children and its impact on them, particularly in those crucial early yearsyears one, two, three and four.
	We welcome the Bill. We have supported it throughout, but we want it to work in practice. I hope that the Government have taken on board the serious concerns that we have expressed throughout our good debates. I hope that they will reflect on them and that, when the Bill reaches the upper House, they will allow some of the amendments that our noble colleagues table to see the light of day and be included in the legislation. Ultimately, we support the Bill. We wish it well, and we will certainly support its Third Reading this evening.

Annette Brooke: May I, too, thank the Chairmen, Deputy Speakers and all the hon. Members on both sides of the House who have participated in Committee and on Second and Third Reading? I certainly agree that we have had some very good debatesperhaps longer ones than I had anticipated, given the nature of the Billon some rather interesting issues. I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) for picking up some rather important Welsh omissions and for emphasising the rural nature of some of the child care settings in Wales.
	It has long been Liberal Democrat policy to invest in children's early years, and we are delighted that the Government have proceeded with a large commitment since 1997. I know what a difference that has made to my constituency. I am sure that many children will be much better prepared for life. I am pretty convinced that we will eventually see some very goods returns on a lot of the Sure Start schemes. Whenever weI use the royal weare rather punitive towards young people, I hope that the early intervention that is taking place will make a real contribution to our local communities and society, and I mean that very sincerely.
	I was going to count the number of times that Ministers have said Oh, that's going to be in the regulations, but I found a better use for my time. They said that an incredible number of times in Committee, and that has been followed up at the same pace, if not an increasing pace, today. That makes scrutiny rather difficult. I am sorry that we could not have more information as we went through the Bill. I admit, of course, that we could not do so, because consultations were going on. I would not want to impede the consultations, but the lack of information seems a pity and it has made things difficult at times, because we have moved amendments to be immediately told, That's all right: it's in the regulationsbut we have not seen them.
	I also welcome the additional safeguarding measures. Although we mentioned safeguarding in our deliberations in Committee, experiences in school settings before Christmas heightened our awareness and made it important to table such amendments. The Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Bill will also deal with some of those issues.
	We have discussed quality at great length and we can never lose sight of its importance. As has been shown, it makes all the difference to outcomes, especially in the very early years. I am not convinced that we have managed to include enough about quality in the Bill, but we had good debates about it.
	I would like to believe that the Bill will make a difference. Clause 6 states:
	An English local authority must secure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the provision of childcare . . . is sufficient.
	Without the resources, reasonably practicable will mean minimal. I hope that the Government will monitor that to ensure that the Bill makes a difference. It may well be necessary to provide a top-up in resources. We must not make false promises to our constituents. The words in the Bill are generally good but, without the resources, they will not mean anything for our constituents. They will not make the genuine difference to the disadvantaged about which we all care, however we express that.
	I sincerely hope that the word taught will be changed, but I have probably said enough about that for one day. I support Third Reading.

Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and I have adjoining constituencies and it falls to me to express my party's thanks to the Conservative Front Benchers, my hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller), for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) and for East Worthing and Shoreham. I add my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), who has paid close attention to everything that was said.
	Perhaps it is too late to suggest to Ministers that the title of the Bill should be changed to Early Years Well-Being. When considering the well-being of children up to the age of fiveor up to the age of eight if one takes account of part 3it is important to reduce the avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap that they may face and to improve their well-being, which is a mixture of wealth and welfare. The development stages, which part 1 covers, are vital.
	Although the measure is primarily about the duties of local authorities, everybody in local authorities will want to involve parents. Trying to develop the confidence and competence of parents is the key to developing the confidence and competence of children in the early stages and building on that through the primary school years, secondary school years and adult life.
	Earlier, I referred briefly to the Plowden report, which was published in 1967. The research papers are worth rereading and I commend them to people in local authorities as well as to those who advise Ministers. The Court report on child health services again showed that parents' actions matter. There is no point in relying on what local authorities or health services can provide if we do not engage parents in what they can do. The reports may be 30 to 40 years old but, if the work was redone now, the same conclusions would be reached. What was learned in Home Start and what Sure Start is introducing are lessons that are not especially new. Every generation needs to relearn them.
	The bipartisan approach to the issues that local authority responsibilities cover matters. We have the problemor challengeof trying to ensure that that gets across to parents in all parts of the country in every generation. If 600,000 to 700,000 children are born each year and at least half are first children in a family, many new parents need to know what is available, what their child's experience will be and what the normal hiccups, obstacles and problems are. All those who dedicate themselves to children, whether in the voluntary sector or in other ways in their professional lives, matter a lot.
	My final word of caution is to enthusiastic Ministers in this third way, new Labour Government. Life did not start in 1997, and nor did the co-operation between health and education. It has been said in a slightly jokey way that, when my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) was booked into a hotel room at a party conference with his wife, Lady Young, they were the Ministers for the under-fives in health and education, and that the two Departments have had better dealings with each other ever since.
	We need to monitor the outcomes that people have worked for. When my wife, who is now in another place, was Minister for Health, she was as concerned about these matters as Ministers are now. I suspect that Ministers will be coming to the House in five or 10 years' time to report on the measurable outcomes. The issue of whether reducing inequalitywhich is not how I would have put itor raising people up from levels at which they should not be allowed to stay is the more important will become clear.
	An example of inequalities for the elderly in our constituencies is that they have to wait nearly two years for a hearing aid, but if they go privately they can get one almost straight away, for a vast sum of money. We could reduce that inequality by saying that people should not buy hearing aids privately. Alternatively, we could reduce the level of unfairness by saying that everyone should get their hearing test and their hearing aid within 18 weeks. I commend that to the Ministers as well.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Supreme Court of England and Wales

That the draft Courts Act 2003 (Consequential Amendment) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Pensions

That the draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling) Order 2006, which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Civil Aviation Security

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 12588/05, draft regulation to replace Regulation 2320/02 on civil aviation security; welcomes the Commission's initiative in producing a clearer, shorter text which will give more legal certainty; and endorses the Government's intention to work with the Presidency, the European Parliament and other Member States to resolve outstanding areas of difficulty.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	Question agreed to.

ESTIMATES

Ordered,
	That, in the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, c.) shall apply as if the words '18th March' in line 18 were replaced by the words '20th March'.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (NO. 2) BILL

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Monday 20th March, any Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill ordered to be brought in and read the first time shall be proceeded with as if its Second Reading stood as an Order of the Day, and Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills) shall apply.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

BLACKPOOL TO FLEETWOOD TRAMWAY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Gordon Marsden: The Blackpool to Fleetwood tramway, which spans 10.4 miles from Starr Gate to Fleetwood and carries 6.5 million passengers a year, is genuinely unique. Opened in 1885, it remains the oldest continuously operating UK tramway. Along with the tower, the winter gardens and the Big One, it is the thing that defines Blackpool for millions of people in Britain. The tramway has also been a star of the silver screen, from the films of George Formby with his little stick of Blackpool rock to the shocking demise of Alan Bradley, who was crushed under the wheels of a tram in Coronation Street, and, most recently, the BBC hit drama series, Blackpool.
	The tramway also annually frames and garlands the greatest light-show in the UK, the illuminations, and the best way to see the illuminations is still by tram. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), as a north-west MP and a history enthusiast, will appreciate all this. He will also understand the pivotal role that the Blackpool to Fleetwood tramway has played, not only in our broader social history but in the identity, life and success of Blackpool as a seaside resort, not least because hundreds, if not thousands, of his own constituents will have travelled on Blackpool trams.
	However, just as Britain cannot live in the past, neither can Blackpool. At 120 years old, the tramway is showing its age. It is in urgent need of modernisation and renewal. It serves not only Blackpool but Cleveleys and Fleetwood, which is why Blackpool council and Lancashire county council have come together on a bid that is enthusiastically backed by all the Fylde coast MPs. I want to emphasise at the outset that the bid is not a heritage project, as some people have suggested.
	It is not something that could be hived off for lottery funding elsewhere, even if the necessary sums were available. Nor is it a tourism project. Some 60,000 people use the tramway every day in Blackpool as a vital element of work and daily travel in the town. It is vital in particular because a larger than average number of elderly people live in Blackpool, and Blackpool still has the lowest car density in the north-west. Having used the tramway to travel from my home and office base in South Shore up to North Shore, I know that it is still a very important practical linkand the journey is of course very evocative, whether one is seeing winter gales or summer sunshine over the Irish sea. Ultimately, the tramway meets a core transport need for the residents of Blackpool and the Fylde coast.
	The Blackpool scheme should not be regarded as a blue-sky scheme. It must not be seen as part of the network of assorted light rail proposals that have been submitted to the Department for Transport in recent years, however worthy they may be. For my constituents, this bid is an essential bread-and-butteror perhaps, as we are talking about Blackpool, I should say fish-and-chipscomponent of public transport.
	The revised project cost of 88 million, of which the Government would contribute 72 million, covers the delivery of fully accessible platforms at stops, new rolling stock which would include articulated trams and low-floor trailers for older trams, a major programme of track renewal, the complete renewal of the electrification from Thornton Gate to Fleetwood, and the revision, substantial extension and modernisation of the tram and bus depot.
	If any evidence is needed of the urgent need for this project, I can draw the Minister's attention to the following factsand they are facts. Less than a quarter of the existing track is in good condition. More than 55 per cent. of it requires attention now and in the near future. A full tramway service from Starr Gate to Fleetwood has not run in any winter since 2001, and the winter of 200405 saw Manchester square closed to tram travel south to Starr Gate. Indeed, on that occasion a 1 million emergency maintenance scheme funded by the Department for Transport was needed to retain access to the depot. The worst part of the track is between Central Pier and South Pier, but the electrical infrastructure north of Cleveleys is powered from a 60-year-old electrical substation, and there is an urgent need for track renewal if the whole system is to remain open beyond 200607.
	The tramway is key not just for Blackpool and Fylde in the present, but for Blackpool and Fylde in the future. An updated tramway is crucial to Blackpool's continued regeneration efforts, and to the success of the town's master plan. Not only would the proposed scheme provide a mass transport system for Fylde coast regeneration by linking Blackpool with Cleveleys and Fleetwood; it would provide the option in future years for further developments to the coast south of Fylde, with considerable potential for links to Blackpool, North and Blackpool airport.
	The tram will deliver the economic and social benefits of resort regeneration by providing a high-quality public transport link between the central area and the main tourism destinations, including some of the large hotels. Transport is a major element in the application to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport for a regional casino in Blackpool, and we know that potential developers regard the tram as a key asset in that context.
	There is considerableindeed, substantiallocal support for the bid. I have mentioned already the support from Members of Parliament. There has also been concerted co-operation and collaboration between Lancashire county council and Blackpool, and full integration with all the planning and local highways authorities. Popular local support for all aspects of regeneration and specifically for the renewal of the tram system has been sustained and widespread. After his recent attendance at the Labour party spring conference, the Minister will know of the intense enthusiasm for the project, not just from the local papers but from delegates and others.
	Perhaps most significantly, the bid has attracted unqualified and unhesitating support from the Northwest Development Agency and from the North West regional assembly. The tram bid was recommended as a priority in the top quartile for regional funding allocation. The Minister will know that, on 22 February, Steven Broomhead, the chief executive of the Northwest Development Agency, wrote to him in support of the project. He said:
	The Tramway scheme scored well in each area and was well placed in the top quartile of these schemes examined. It has been recommended by the Region as a priority for funding . . . because this scheme is partially a deferred maintenance scheme it carries less risk . . . I would be grateful if you could place on record the Agency's full support for the Blackpool and Fleetwood Tramway project.
	That underlines just how strong and unanimous the support for the scheme is across the region.
	It is also important to comment briefly on the basis for the resubmitted scheme that Lancashire county council and Blackpool have put forward, because that indicates how they have responded positively to the demands that the Department placed on them after the initial submission of the scheme resulted in a request for revision. The revised scheme emphasises that it is a tramway, not a light rail system and that it updates an existing system, rather than building an entirely new tram network. The scheme scores well on deliverability and value for money. Blackpool already has a right of way and other assets that will provide cost savings. The scheme has been nearly five years in development and so the costs and the patronage figures that are quoted in the submission are far more robust and involve far less risk than might otherwise be the case. The relatively modest cost88 million at 2005 pricesworks out at a cost per kilometre of 4.9 million, which is a fraction of the cost of most other light rail projects. The tram routes in Blackpool are free of utilities equipment, so there will be no need for expensive relocation work. The project is phased across a range of financial periods. Government contributions are requested to be 8.1 million in 200607, 26 million in 200708 and 37 million in 200809.
	Importantly, the scheme will ensure that there are modern articulated trams that are compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The positive benefit-cost ratio that the Department has asked for is in line with its requirements. However, no direct account is taken in the submission of the positive synergy between a tramway upgrade and the development of key sites in the regeneration area. I would argue, therefore, that the economic benefits of the scheme as outlined have been substantially underestimated. In my view, that strengthens the case for it.
	The devil is always in the detail of such projects, as we know, but I would argue that Lancashire county council and Blackpool between them have produced sufficient detail to satisfy the most demanding transport anorak. Let me cite some of what has been achieved. The revised bid, which was submitted in July 2005, reduced the capital cost by a third. It reduced the Government's contribution to 72 million over three years from 200607. It also produced a benefit-cost ratio of 1.59:1, to which I have already referred. Blackpool has cut costs by reducing the number of stops from 61 to 40, reducing the number of points and crossings from 147 to 54 and reducing the number of vehicles from 19 new and 20 refurbished ones to 16 new and 12 refurbished ones. All that was done in line with Department for Transport guidance and advice, and the consideration went right down to the type of coaches that would be commissioned if the bid went ahead.
	The Minister must forgive me if he detects a slight note of frustration, as well as enthusiasm for the bid, in my voice, given the time over which the bid has been going on. We in Blackpool believe that we have done virtually everything that the Department has asked of us. The cost-benefit information shows that the bid is as robust and conservative as the driest economist might wish. However, even at this stage, if there are aspects of the bid that are not clear to departmental officials, the council and others in Blackpool stand ready to provide even more information.
	We have tried to respond to what officials have asked for and produced a proposal that meets the Government's tight priorities. Other light rail schemes have been criticised because of runaway costs and over-optimistic forecasts. Our tram appraisal, as now submitted, is tight, informed and on the button.
	I suggest to the Minister that the time for a decision is very close. I hope that with the examples that I have cited, I have underlined that I do not believe that the possible closure of elements of the track due to health and safety concerns is a question of exaggeration or bluff. I thus ask him to reflect on and respond to several specific questions.
	Will the Minister tell me why there has been confusion among officials about the new submission? There is evidence that they did not realise that it was a new bid, rather than a resubmission. Will he tell me why issues around supporting information on capital costs were not raised until recently by Department for Transport officials as part of the KPMG assessment?
	Does the Minister realise that because Blackpool's bid involves the upgrade of an existing system, the project would be much cheaper than a typical light rail scheme and be a low-risk project? The bid has much evidence on which to base costs and patronage figures. I understand that it will involve no costs or Transport and Works Act requirements for moving utilities or existing cables. Is the Department fully aware of the endorsement of the tram project by both the Northwest Development Agency and the North West regional assembly, and that they have placed it in the top quarter of priority of all the projects that need funding in the north-west regional transport plan, which is now with the Minister and his officials?
	I know that in a tight fiscal climate, any Minister will always want to be satisfied about the detail. However, we in Blackpool ask that the bid is judged on fair and transparent criteria that apply to it, rather than to other bids for light rail schemes. We ask that the goalposts are not continually moved throughout the process.
	For us in Blackpool and on the Fylde coast, the tramwayand its survival and renewalis not tourism frippery or an end-of-the-pier show. The bid is a core funding proposal for something that is essential to the future functioning of public transport in Blackpool and on the Fylde coast, and that is the basis on which I ask the Minister to approve the scheme urgently. Although he will want to exercise throughout the process all the analytical powers that I know that he will bring to bear, I hope that he will not ignore the honourable place that history would afford himalong with George Formby and Coronation Streetas the man who gave new life to a treasured, iconic and very practical public transport system and made it fit for purpose in a 21st century, regenerated Blackpool, rather than dooming it to curio status and possible closure.

Derek Twigg: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden)on securing this debate. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) are great champions of Blackpool and the issues it is faced with. I welcome the opportunity to hear at first hand the views on the Blackpool to Fleetwood tramway and to set out the Government's position in respect of its future.
	I am aware that the Blackpool to Fleetwood tramway is the oldest continuously operating tramway in the UK. It has been operating since 1885, and it currently carries about 4 million passengers a year. The Government recognise that the tramway is an established part of the transport network on the Fylde coast. Blackpool council has spent 4.5 million over the past four years on essential maintenance to keep the tramway running. It says that a minimum of a further 16 million will be required over the next three years to maintain the existing tramway.
	We therefore recognise the situation regarding the tramway's future. To do nothing in the next few years would mean that it could no longer operate in the way that it has been doing for many years. We also need to consider the tramway in the wider local and regional context. Blackpool's provisional local transport plan was submitted in July 2005. It highlighted three significant changes since the previous local transport plan, which crucially affect the context within which Blackpool council will seek to deliver its transport strategy. They are the decision to bid for the tramway upgrade; a revision of the local land use planning framework; and the development of a master plan for Blackpool and subsequent formation of an urban regeneration company to take this vision forward.
	Blackpool council's master plan aims to transform the town, widening its appeal to fresh tourist markets both from the UK and abroad, and providing opportunities for the people of the town, especially those in the most vulnerable groups. The council recognised that the most significant challenge during its local transport plan period will be to deliver the development necessary to regenerate its resort economy, while still meeting sustainable transport objectives. Those objectives aim to minimise the impacts of traffic, encourage modal shift away from the car, minimise poor air quality and improve the accessibility of vital jobs and services, especially to the residents of deprived areas. The council considers that continuing access to a mass public transport system in the form of a modernised Blackpool to Fleetwood tramway is integral to the sort of regeneration anticipated by the master plan.
	In 2001, Blackpool and Lancashire councils submitted a bid for a major upgrade to the system. That was rejected by my Department on value for money grounds. The promoters submitted a new major scheme business case in July 2005. Their preferred option, as set out in the business case, is to renew the existing track, replace the electrification infrastructure on the most northern section of the line and replace the overhead conductor over the entire length of the line. They propose to meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 by a combined fleet of new low-cost tram vehicles, accessible trailer cars coupled to refurbished heritage trams and raised platforms at stops to enable level boarding.
	The forecast outturn cost of that would be 96 million, of which the local councils would provide 24 million. The promoters are therefore seeking central Government funding of 72 million. In terms of value for money, which my hon. Friend referred to, the promoters say that their preferred option would have a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.57:1. Their assessment is that it will have a strong economical benefit and will have some additional benefits in terms of environment, safety, accessibility and integration objectives. My officials are reviewing the promoters' BCR and other claims. If the reported BCR turns out to be accurate, and it is established that all the non-monetised impacts will be positive, the scheme would be classified as offering medium value for money under the Department's guidance.
	We require promoters, when presenting a business case to the Department, to consider alternative options. In this case, the promoters have considered three other options for system upgrade, which I shall briefly set out.
	The next best alternative is similar to the preferred option, but with a reduced length of operation. It proposes the loss of a third of the northernmost section, with services turning around at the proposed loop at Thornton Gate. A lower cost alternative would further reduce the length of tramway, with the line terminating at Thornton Gate and Pleasure Beach. That would be coupled with minimal investment in infrastructure and vehicles. Special services would be provided by refurbished heritage units. Finally, a do minimum option has been considered, which proposes the retention of a tramway only between Pleasure Beach and North Pier, accepting the loss of its local transport function. My officials have worked closely with the promoters on their proposals and are carrying out an economic assessment of the business case to provide me with value for money advice on the scheme.
	My hon. Friend raised specific questions about the Department's handling of the Blackpool bid. He suggested there has been some confusion among my officials about whether the bid is new. I assure him that there has been no confusion. My officials met Blackpool council in July 2005, before the bid was submitted, to understand the context of the bid. We have treated the submission as a new bid.
	My hon. Friend asked whether the Department recognises that the bid has been substantially revised to meet the Department's earlier concerns about affordability and value for money, and that it meets the Department's requirements. We recognise that the costs have been reduced significantly compared with Blackpool's previous bid. As I said, we are considering the value for money assessment, and I cannot say at this stage what the results will be.
	My hon. Friend also asked whether I accept that the costs and risks of upgrading an existing system are lower than for a new system. I confirm that we recognise that certain risks are lower for an upgrade. For example, a new light rail system would require utility diversions and Transport and Works Act 1992 powers.
	My hon. Friend suggested that questions have been raised only recently on the capital costs. We raised issues about the information on capital costs at the end of 2005, following the Department's and our consultants' initial assessment of the bid submitted at the end of July. Also, we recently had to consider how the costs in the bid relate to the costs indicated in the advice that we received from the north-west region at the end of January on its priorities for use of the regional funding allocation. As I indicated, we are still completing our assessment of the bid, and at this stage I have not made any decisions in respect of the Blackpool to Fleetwood tramway. Therefore, the debate is very timely. I will take my hon. Friend's points into account, as well as other advice that I have received and the advice that my officials will give me in due course.
	Following the publication of regional funding allocations last year, the north-west regional bodies have provided me with advice on which schemes are prioritised within the region. My hon. Friend asked whether I am aware of the endorsement of the tram project by both the Northwest Development Agency and the North West regional assembly. The advice that I received from the regional bodies gives priority to the refurbishment of the tramway to help the economic regeneration of Blackpool. I have also had a representation from the North West regional assembly supporting the scheme.
	Any decisions on the projects prioritised by the regional bodies will be made in due course. We will take account of their views in our final decision on spend within the regional transport allocations. That will include their views on the timing of any funding provision as well as the amount.
	The debate has given me the opportunity to hear my hon. Friend's views on the future of the Blackpool to Fleetwood tramway. As he rightly said, I have also received other representations, not least on my recent visit to Blackpool. I understand that there is a great deal of interest in the tramway in Blackpool. Obviously, I am not in a position to make and give a decision at the moment, but I listened carefully to my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do that
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Five o'clock.